“Not much to say… can’t be mad. The other team is just that much better.”
That was from commenter LKK during/after the Lakers’ loss in San Antonio to the Spurs on Thursday night. While I do think there were some things to get somewhat upset about, I think LKK captures about how I was feeling while I was watching San Antonio build their lead, then extend it, then maintain it until the final buzzer.
In fact, right around the end of the 1st quarter, I actually said out loud (to myself, since no one was in the room) that “both teams are showing their quality, the Spurs are just showing they have more of it.” Beyond that, they were also showing that they know how to exhibit that quality for longer stretches within a game.
So, no, I’m not that mad about the game. I’m not happy either, of course. The team played poorly for the 2nd straight game and lost. Does the fact that they lost to a very good team on the road soften that blow a bit? I guess, but when you see the final margin, whatever softening occurred goes away. Losing by 40 is bad times regardless. There’s not much spin to be able to put on that type of game.
Again, though, I’m not really upset. What I am is understanding of how different these teams are and of how the Spurs represent a certain goal the Lakers should be chasing. Whether they ever get to that point is a real question that, honestly, I have my doubts about — as I wrote in my game preview, the Spurs join the Warriors as the only team with single digit losses and as ranking in the top 5 of both offensive and defensive efficiency. If this version of the Lakers is never that good, it would not surprise me. Most teams are never that good. But I’m off track now…
During the early part of the game, one thing that stood out to me was how much more comfortable within their game plan the Spurs are than the Lakers. They have that innate trust that comes from not just thinking, but knowing, where your teammates are going to be, what they’re going to do, and how you should be interacting with them.
An example of this was a random play in the 2nd half where the Lakers allowed some dribble penetration baselinebut actually defended the play okay overall. They helped on the drive to deter a shot at the rim. Then, when the driver passed to the man in the corner, the closeout was quick enough to not only deter a shot, but also any potential drive. In fact, the closeout was so good, the fact the pass got through at all was a bit of surprise. However, right when the Spur in the corer received the pass, he immediately kicked the ball to the shoulder of the arc where he had a teammate waiting. That split second pass was so quick the Lakers did not make their 3rd rotation on the possession and surrendered an open 3 which, of course, went in.
It was the Spurs 2nd unit which ran that action to perfection, which, in and of itself, is impressive. Maybe most impressive, actually. But what I noticed was the trust involved in that set. That when the first player drove baseline he knew that he could either shoot or pass. And that even when the pass looked to be covered up, he still made it because he knew his teammate would be where he was supposed to be and would make the catch. Then, upon receipt of the ball, the corner man barely even looked and instantly shoveled the ball along to his waiting teammate because, you guessed it, he too knew that the opening was there and that his ‘mate would be ready to make a play with the ball.
The Lakers don’t play this way yet. Maybe they never will consistently. There are flashes of it now and the fact that they’re there at all is encouraging. But they are fleeting. And that is frustrating. I know it is for the coaches. After games Luke Walton often says “we stopped moving the ball” and while I have said that the Lakers don’t yet have all the player movement and counters installed to consistently ping the ball around the floor like the Spurs, what that type of analysis misses is that they also don’t yet fully have the trust or instincts to make the types of passes the Spurs made on that possession described above. At least not as often as they need to have them.
So, yeah, the Lakers are far away from where they need to be. And the Spurs, in that single possession, and over the course of the full game reminded me of that on Thursday. Now, onto some notes:
*Julius Randle was awesome early, taking it to both Pau and LaMarcus Aldridge offensively. One thing I love about how Randle is playing lately is that he knows teams don’t respect his jumper and that they’re giving him space. Rather than get tentative, though, he’s eating up that space with his dribble to put his defender on his heels. Even if Randle doesn’t get to the rim when doing this, he does set himself up to take the type of jumper that he wants to take (a little leaner or fade shot he’s clearly more comfortable with) than the type defenses want him to (pure spot up, without a good rhythm).
*Brandon Ingram only shot 3-7 for 9 points, but he hit another 3 pointer (1-3 behind the arc). That may not seem like a big deal and maybe it’s not. But, I will say that for the season Ingram has hit only 26 threes in his 43 games played. In 7 January games, though, he’s already hit 7 and is shooting 41.2% from distance over that stretch. I don’t know if he’s finding his range or if this is just a mini hot streak, but it is encouraging to see him start to flash some of the shooting ability that he did in college.
*Before Thursday, Ivica Zubac had appeared in 7 games and played a total of 55 minutes. In that time he’d scored 15 points and grabbed 3 rebounds. In 14 minutes of action against the Spurs on Thursday he scored 8 points and grabbed 4 rebounds. Was this pure garbage time? Yes. Was the quality of player on the floor very high? No. But the Spurs continued to play well (and hard) during that stretch and Zubac acclimated himself well. He showed his soft touch around the rim, played big in the defensive paint, and even changed ends (both from D to O and the opposite) well. He did drop a couple of passes (one his fault, the other was a low bounce pass from Russell that should have been caught too, but it was low), but I think part of that was just not being used to getting those types of passes very often. I’d like to see him get more minutes as the season progresses, though I know the C rotation can be crowded.
*A nice homecoming for Jordan Clarkson who scored 14 points on 6-11 shooting. He was his normal aggressive self in looking to get into the teeth of the defense and did a nice job converting once there.
*After a nice run of drawing some fouls and getting to the FT line in the last couple weeks, D’Angelo Russell had a zero FT night. There was one play where the refs missed a foul where Tony Parker hit Russell on his shot and there was another drive where he got stripped that, based on recent games, could have been a call. But, it didn’t happen. I’m not the biggest proponent of FT rate as a driver for offensive success for all players and Russell plays the type of game where his numbers are going to be lower than a guy like Harden. That said, if Russell’s going to be a 20 point scorer in this league, he’s going to need to take 4-6 FT’s a game. To have a night with zero is tough.
*It was nice to see Pau again. It was also nice to see him play well. I’ll always have a soft spot for the big Spaniard.
LonShapiro says
“I’m not the biggest proponent of FT rate as a driver for offensive success for all players and Russell plays the type of game where his numbers are going to be lower than a guy like Harden.”
Please explain Darius.
IMO, DAR’s ceiling is to become a poor man’s Harden. He will never be able to defend quick PGs like Parker, Lowry and Lillard, so he has to punish smaller opponents physically by penetrating or posting them up. He had success doing it against Lillard for one half, but stopped doing it. When he tries to match these guys by shooting 3s, the team suffers, even when he is making his 3s. He was 6 for 12 against Toronto, scoring 28 points, but Lowry scored 41. And if he misses his 3s, like the last Portland game, he brings the entire offense to a grinding halt, while allowing the opponent the chance to start a fast break.
A Horse With No Name says
.” I’m not the biggest proponent of FT rate as a driver for offensive success for all players and Russell plays the type of game where his numbers are going to be lower than a guy like Harden. That said, if Russell’s going to be a 20 point scorer in this league, he’s going to need to take 4-6 FT’s a game. To have a night with zero is tough.”
Good nuanced take. Different stats will to a greater or lesser extent, reflect different strengths and weaknesses but do not, in isolation, provide a complete picture. As a young woman who works for me would say “Yeah, duh.”
_ Robert _ says
“can’t be mad” – I understand this, because I was not mad either. I knew there was little chance of a “W” in this game and that there was a good chance of a blowout. It was worse than expected but a blowout is a blowout – though I am concerned that at times we get completely overwhelmed by the good teams and you would think that once a team was up by 30-40, they would let down, and a supposedly scrappy team like ours would bring it back to a respectable 20 points or so. The fact that we lose by 40 is a concern for our overall fight and morale which is supposed to be a strength. That said – I am still not mad.
However I have been mad many times over the past several years as most of you know. Casual fans might say – well it does not really matter – the sun will come up tomorrow. Most people on this board are a little more than casual so I assume that “mad” has entered into the situation at some point for most of you. Last night should not have been it – IMO. It could have occurred many times over the past several years. One time I was mad was letting Pau Gasol walk out the door for nothing. I was also mad when he was being beaten down and misused under MDA. Do we realize that while we had some injuries and bad luck, we could have done things differently and been more like the Spurs? We let Pau go for nothing, and Dwight go for nothing, and we handled Kobe’s last years and contracts different than they handled Duncan’s. We wiffed on FA and trades where they did things well. They kept their coach and we had a feud with ours. They had an organized non contentious Front Office and we did not. All of that made me mad when it occurred (and is till occurring in some cases). A game like last night is the result of all of that stuff, so no – last night’s game did not make me mad. What led up to it however makes me extremely mad.
“If this version of the Lakers is never that good, it would not surprise me. Most teams are never that good. But I’m off track now…” Wow – this is hitting at the core of everything. No – I would not say you are off track – rather – right on track. The Spurs are a contender and the Lakers are trying to get back there after falling off a cliff that the spurs avoided. Jim guaranteed we would already be there (he was a little off). Nobody has a crystal ball, however this is a Laker board and whether we are speculating on what Luke will do with the lineup, how the Lakers are going to handle the P+R, or whether they will be contenders in 3 years – it is all speculation. It seems to me that the projection of how good this group can be is of paramount importance. Some feel that we can let the core develop, add an ancillary player or two, gradually get better every year and then contend, with 2-3 current players ending up as Laker legends. Others of us, myself included think that “this version of the Lakers is never that good”. There are elements of this version that can blend into the next version, but we still need major change. The 90’s teams needed Shaq and Kobe and by the time they came, virtually all of the Lake Show roster was gone. I know this is not the Fantasy that people want to think about, but it is important, cause the moves we make are totally different depending on what your assumptions are. If DAR, Randle, and Ingram all make our Wall, then that dictates one set of moves and one plan, but if “this version of the Lakers is never that good” then it dictates another set of moves and another plan.
There is no way that topic of conversation is “off track”. I am not clear what other track there is.
Darius Soriano says
LonShapiro Not sure what there is to explain. Harden, as one example, is much more of a penetrating player who absolutely hunts fouls. I think Russell will draw fouls at a better rate over time than he is now, but I don’t ever think he’ll be a guy in the top 5 in the league of FTA’s like Harden is. If he settles in around 5-7 FTA’s a game, I think that is about all that can be expected of a player like Russell. He’s just not the power penetrator, quick twitch athlete who draws a ton of shooting fouls.
Now, can he use his size to his advantage in the post and by putting defenders in “jail” in the P&R;? Yes, and he’s already doing that. And I think as he gets better and better at those things the fouls will come because those are advantageous positions to be in on offense and that’s typically how fouls are drawn. But I think it’s been proven that the players who draw the most fouls (outside of hack-a players like D’Andre Jordan), are downhill players who drive a lot and get all the way to basket, using their combination of burst and physicality to earn FT’s. You know, the LeBron, Westrbrook, Harden, Wiggins, DeRozan types. Russell can (and I think will) be a very good offensive player. I think scoring 20+ points a night is in his future. But I think he’ll be doing that on 5-6 FTA’s a night rather than 8-10.
Regarding his 3 point shooting, it’s a weapon and to say that he shouldn’t be shooting that shot is a strange take. He’s one of the best young, volume 3 point shooters in the league and to try and say he should stop being that in favor of a post up guard — which has some, but not as much utility in today’s league — is strange. Can he post up more than he currently is? Yes. But I don’t want to necessarily swap out good 3 point looks for post ups. I think he’ll get more post chances as the team’s offense continues to evolve and Russell’s usage goes up/evolves.
LonShapiro says
Darius Soriano I should have been more clear about his shooting.
Russell is a good three point shooter when it is within the context of sharing the ball. Against Portland in the second half, he just dribbled and jacked up 3s with everyone standing around, so the whole offense ground to a halt, regardless of whether he is making his shots or not.
If he posts up small players and wears them down, that has a long term effect at the end of the game. It doesn’t mean he will shoot near the paint every time. When opponents send help, he can pass the ball back out and slide along the baseline to shoot a corner three, or run off a screen in the paint to the other side to get open for another shot.
With regard to the downhill players you mentioned, Harden is the slowest of the bunch, so he would seem to be the best model for DAR to follow. He’s already comfortable going around a screen and keeping his defender on his back to make those 12-15 foot jump shots. the next piece is to get stronger, so he can finish better and draw fouls.
That’s why I said “poor man’s” Harden. He’s never going to reach the same levels of drawing fouls, but if he gets the the FTA you suggest, that would be a huge improvement.
mattal says
_ Robert _
In the
last thread I defined the talent level needed to compete for a championship as
having a roster with one All NBA
performer (top 15 player) and one other All Star (top 30 player) and another
near All Star (top 50 player). If I’m off I’m not off by much in making
that statement.
Regarding
the kids: absent a crystal ball, Jim and Mitch, are in the same wait and see
mode as we all are. This is why I have been so critical of Jim/Mitch and
their signings of Mozgov/Deng. It handcuffs the organization in
controlling talent acquisition going forward. And yes, I believe that the
kids will fall short of that talent barometer and we’ll need to add outside
talent.
I am increasingly doubtful that Jim/Mitch can get us where we
need to go. I think the
Mozgov/Deng signings were a direct result of their need to fast forward the
Lakers progress in an effort to get a stay of execution from Jeanie. I can’t act like Jim and Mitch were
just hired and deserve time to fix a mess they inherited. These guys caused the very mess they
are trying to clean up. They have been given far too much rope in my mind
— even taking into account their recent draft record and the signing of
Luke.
Darius Soriano says
LonShapiro I think it’s all fine and good to say Russell should be in the post more, I also think it runs somewhat counter to what the Lakers want to be on offense. As it stands, Russell gets most of his post ups out of two actions. The 1st is him simply calling his own number — he’ll dribble the ball up and then back his man down into the post and look to score, draw a foul, or pass. The 2nd is a designed action where the ball swings to Russell who is in the pinch post and then they’ll bring a wing over to set a screen for him where Russell usually looks to be a passer when the screener slips the pick to flow into a hard roll.
The team also runs some post ups for Mozgov (to keep him engaged, imo) and for Randle (to get him mid-post actions where he can start his drives closer to the rim), but for the most part the team wants to play fast (pushing the ball) and with tempo (pinging the ball around the court via drive and kicks, penetration on dives via the P&R;, etc). Post ups don’t really fit into that equation that much. It doesn’t mean they can’t do it more, I just think what you’re talking about is less on Russell and more on what the team, as a whole, is asking him to do offensively.
In saying all that, Russell is a good post up player for a guard and long term I think he’ll find his way there more. I think for the overall efficiency and flow of the offense it will take time to evolve the team’s approach to incorporate that more. Especially since, as it stands, Russell is so important as a perimeter based player due to his passing and ability to threaten the defense in the P&R; and when working off screens. Which, I think, speaks to some roster issues + the development curve of other players on the roster (Clarkson especially, but also Randle and Ingram) and how capable they are in replicating some of things Russell does well as a floor general.
FredP says
In a bizarre way, this game was encouraging. The Spurs demolished the Lakers in all facets of the game and their only superstar is Leonard who only played 26 minutes. Aldridge and Gasol might not even make the all-star game and Parker is a few years removed from being a dominant player. The point remains that the Lakers can also become a dominant team by staying the course and giving their players time to learn how to better play together. The young core still has a lot of growing to do with their games and the older players are still figuring out how to fit in. Jim Buss’s assertion of the WCF is certainly out of the question for this season and next but the base is there for a dominant team if they remain patient.
_ Robert _ says
Mattal: As usual we agree on most everything. The Deng/Mosgov fiasco, the doubts about our FO, and no you are not off by much in terms of what it takes to “compete”. However, to really be a title threat, you usually need one of the top 3 guys in the league. Very few teams win it like the 2004 Pistons. A couple of the Spur teams have been sorta like that. However 90%+ of the championship teams in history have been led by one of the 3 best players in the league, and often it is the best player in the league. Obviously – the last couple years have been no exception.
What this means is that you need to be ready if one of those guys becomes available. LBJ just changed teams. So did KD. Specials situations yes – but in the past we were the beneficiary of the special situation and now we are just one of the other 27 (non-contending) teams watching the three top teams (currently GS, SA, and Cleveland) jockey for the title. SA does not have one of the top 3 guys in the league, but they do have a 1st team all NBA guy which means they have one of the top 5 and he is one of the best defensively. In addition to LBJ and KD moving, other top players were FA, so there were plenty of major moves there – they just were not there for us (and not all of them would have been good anyway).
We need to put ourselves into a position where we can make moves like this at the right time in the future. Developing the young core and improving may do that, but we can’t be content that our core is going to be the end all (I know you do not feel this way). We also can’t hamstring ourselves with contracts like we did last summer.
The Lake Show did not morph into the 2000 title team by hard work and fighting over screens. They merely laid a groundwork from which the Lakers could make the Kobe and Shaq acquisitions. Our FO needs to put us in a similar position at this time.
KevTheBold says
Darius Soriano LonShapiro
I agree. Scoring is scoring, imo.
No matter where it comes from.
Even though drawing fouls creates late quarter free throw situations, I don’t believe that every player on a team, or even a point guard need rely on it.
It’s also another path to increased injury, and a lead point guard like Russell, needs to be healthy and on this roster, or they sink like a rock.
Another player or two on each unit, like Clarkson or Ingram can serve that role, which allows a player with D’Angelo’s visual skill set, to play mostly where he has a full view of the floor.
In addition,..besides one play last night when he weaved perfectly through the defense to the rim, he seems not to be comfortable doing so, thus not very adept.
Not to say that he can’t learn, but right now there are more pressing things he need learn for the sake of this team. Like keeping his focus 100% locked into the moment.
KevTheBold says
FredP
Agree Fred, imo, the biggest danger is to their self belief, which fuels all other aspects.
I’m really rooting for Walton to stay strong, and believe in himself, and his plan, because all of his energy, whether it be plus or minus, flows into his team.
As for the team, imo, he’s got the tools, minus a few key pieces.
For example, two hard nosed defenders, young enough to grow with this core, but with granite mindsets.
LKK says
Being mad was not an option last night, however being sad at the disparity between these once fierce rivals was certainly a feeling that hit me. The Spurs certainly have the edge in personnel with an assortment of current and former All Stars, many of whom have a championship pedigree. Our Lakers are still trying to learn the nuances of the NBA game. Their offense can be shut down for the most part by good defense and their defense presents little problem for a team that executes its offense with precision and with the certainty of a well rehearsed plan. Not to shine up to the moderator, but thoughts that we have a long way to go definitely crossed my mind.
The question that consumes most of us on this board is how does the team elevate itself into real contention? Certainly the talent level has to increase, but the young guys have got to learn how to play together on both ends of the floor. Too often the ball doesn’t move and players don’t either. Even the Spurs’ deep reserves played with confidence and assurance. Our guys seem tentative more often than not. Despite a new coaching staff and different players, the team’s defense is horrendous. I think the three lottery picks will determine the club’s immediate future. If they can reach a high level of performance, the team can build around them. If not, the Lakers will continue to wallow in mediocrity.
PterraDacto says
As a frequent reader of your wonderful site (that goes for the comment section as well), I’m am very proud of the diligent analysis provided by Mr. Soriano game in game out. That being said keep the faith. Lakers till my casket drops! Peace