web analytics
<
Tag Archive - LaMarcus Aldridge

Keeping Up Appearances

April 12, 2011 in by with 4 Comments

Brace yourselves, for the Lakers are engulfed in another slump. On the heels of a wholly impressive stretch coming out of the All-Star break in which the two-time defending champions went 17-1, they have hit a snag, dropping their last five contests — one of the recent blunders was Friday’s loss at the hands of the Portland Trail Blazers, who won with unexpected ease, 93-86.

This is, at minimum, the third time the Lakers have found themselves in a losing streak that’s troubling to some, impertinent to others during the season. Invariably, these spates of difficulty spark an unnavigable divide between those who consider any discernible losing streak as the ultimate apocalypse and those who could care less; after all, the playoffs haven’t started yet.

No matter one’s bent on the gravity of the Lakers’ regular-season losses, a trend has emerged this season through which one explanation is sufficient to pinpoint why they were defeated in any instance: they didn’t try hard enough.

No game demonstrated this trend better than Friday’s drubbing by the Blazers. As Phil Jackson said after the game, “These guys just don’t want to play hard right now.”

(And comments like those are not a one-time thing, for those who view this as an aberration. Looking back to the Lakers’ loss to the Miami Heat on Christmas Day, here’s what Kobe Bryant notoriously had to say postgame: “It’s like these games mean more to our opponents than they do to us,” Bryant said. “I think we need to get that straight — play with more focus, put more [emphasis] on these games. I don’t like it. … We know what we’re capable of doing, and that’s part of the problem.”)

In this Blazers game, how much did lack of effort really play in to the defeat? The knee-jerk response is obvious: the Lakers are agreeably better than the Trail Blazers, so they had to have phoned in the game to have lost. Yes, the Lakers shot a despicable 39.5 percent, but couldn’t that just have been the result of great Blazers defense?

Bryant shot just 10-of-25 from the field, due in large part to lockdown D from Wesley Matthews, who has emerged as one of the top Kobe stoppers this season. Factor in LaMarcus Aldridge’s containment of Pau Gasol, and it doesn’t seem all that ridiculous that the Lakers could have scored only 86 points.

Meanwhile, the Lakers won the battle of rebounding, a stat that many classify as an effort number, 52-41.

On Wednesday, the Lakers lost to the Golden State Warriors, 95-87, for the first time in 14 matchups. It was largely a poor showing for L.A., but Pau Gasol (18 points on 7-of-11 shooting) and Andrew Bynum (13 points on 5-of-5 shooting, 17 rebounds) were a pair of bright spots. If the problem was effort, care to explain why Pau Gasol only played 27 minutes throughout the game and not at all down the stretch? Presumably Jackson would want the guy in who was actually playing well. Furthermore, Bynum probably would have taken more than five shots if he were playing so effectively and no one else gave a hoot.

It appears, then, that the “effort” argument doesn’t really have much practical traction. More simply, the explanation is probably just that the Lakers get outplayed on occasion. It’s not a huge surprise that the Lakers and their fans would want to remain blind to that argument, though. Considering they have won the last two NBA titles, maybe that’s their prerogative.

Still, there is a disconcerting problem with the duality that the NBA community at large perceives of Lakers’ losses as lack of effort and losses of every other team as nonperformance — more simply, other teams “suck” when they lose. Such was the case Thursday when the Celtics fell to the Bulls in a fairly embarrassing manner. But it wouldn’t be right to say that the Celtics were disinterested in playing hard against the Bulls (after all, they soiled the proverbial bed and were undoubtedly outplayed). So why is it permissible to excuse the Lakers’ poor play that way?

Well, frankly, the Lakers have won a lot over the years. A lot. They have won so much that there’s a culture of win-or-die subordinate only to the delusion that the Yankees and their fans share. With that culture as a basis, the Lakers have done a masterful job of crafting a narrative in which their team bows down to no mortal — in the eyes of the Lakers, they are never underdogs and should never lose.

Consequently, accentuating the accomplishments of another team has a stigma of inner weakness attached to it. Acknowledging that the Blazers’ defense might have shut them down would have been tantamount to saying that the O’Brien Trophy was open for the taking, at least from their perspective. This is why you’ll never, ever see a Lakers player help up an opponent during the game or cry in the locker room after the final buzzer. They vigorously defend their image of toughness.

Phil Jackson didn’t win 11 titles by being an idiot, and it’s evident from his aforementioned comment that he’s aware perception is reality. He’s basically the only coach that will say anything legitimate to the media, and he uses that candidness to, well, construct an effective facade: the Lakers do try, and the appearance of apathy is just a cover for ineluctable vulnerability.

It might sound bunk, but there’s a psychological hurdle to beating the Lakers that is absent for other teams, most notably the Heat. And so long as the Lakers keep winning when it counts, it will remain impenetrable. That might not be right for the game, but it is most definitely right for the Purple and Gold.

No One Knows What It’s Like

December 22, 2009 in by with 1 Comment

It’s too obvious to say that building a team is more difficult than it looks. But it should also be obvious that building a team is less difficult than a few owners/GMs/coaches/a certain GM-Coach whose name rhymes with ‘Fun-schmeevy’ have made it look. There are certain guiding principles, bits of prevailing logic perhaps, that have guided lesser franchises through harder times by way of savvy management. Things as basic as avoiding draft land mines (or at least avoiding stepping in the same ones repeatedly), refusing to buckle in trade negotiations when in possession of real value, and knowing when to buy and when to sell. These general concepts (among many, many others) are the foundation of reasonable team management, but here’s the bizarre thing: even when armed with a detailed understanding of the league, an appreciation of the general tenets of successfully running a team, and a comprehensive history of the NBA crammed into your skull, there are no guarantees of success. Proper management will get you so far, but the harsh reality is that proper team-building takes so much more.

The Portland Trailblazers are an interesting case study on multiple levels, but particularly because their fortunes have been all over the place. Brandon Roy is clearly the star of the show, and rightfully so. He’s an incredibly talented offensive player who can produce without stymieing the greater team-wide vision. In fact, with a player of Roy’s particular talents and tendencies, you could go as far as to say that he excels within a team framework. There are certain NBA players who were born to win one-on-one tournaments. And for what it’s worth, Roy probably wouldn’t do too badly. That said, the true beauty of his game comes in how he controls the flow of the offense and manages space. He works the pick-and-roll beautifully, he draws extra defenders and finds the open man, and above all, Roy isn’t just capable of making the pass, but completely willing to. He’s humble. He’s a consummate professional. He’s hungry. And despite everything that has gone right for the Blazers in amassing their stable of young talent, it’s possible that they still haven’t figured out what kind of players are best-suited to flank Roy (and LaMarcus Aldridge, and whoever else is deemed part of the core).

It’s not as simple as taking a franchise model and plugging in Roy. His style is very much his own, and despite the temptation to assume that he would work the same in any number of systems with a precedent of talented shooting guards, that’s not the way it works. Just because the Bulls of the 90s, the Lakers of the early 2000s, and the current incarnation all run some version of the triangle offense, the personnel put their mark on the system. In those cases, you can hold the coach and the system constant, but that doesn’t make Luc Longley and Shaquille O’Neal one in the same. Players will always shape a system to make it unique, and great players typically have a more profound influence than is easily recognizable. As much as Roy is to be part of McMillan’s system, the system and the rotation must adjust to the specificities of Roy’s game. Hence, we now have quite the ongoing quandary in regard to Steve Blake, Andre Miller, and Jerryd Bayless’ spots in the rotation. If you rank the players in terms of their sheer basketball value, you may end up with a different result than if you ranked them according to their value to this team. It’s a hell of a situation to be in for a team that supposedly had it made, and it’s only the most obvious of the Blazers’ troubles this season.

You can write your rules, follow the guidelines, and flesh out the system and the game plan all you’d like, but things in the NBA don’t go according to plan. Long-term success hinges on a coach and a front office’s ability to learn and adjust, and though the Blazers are far from any kind of critical point, their current troubles have only furthered their position as a team of interest. NBA rotations don’t just fall into place, regardless of the talent on the roster, and though some acquisitions may seem random in nature, those that work out seamlessly are often those that are carefully weighed in the context of not only the system, but the specific roles and capabilities of the players within that system. It’s all a very delicate balancing act. After all, if Steve Blake doesn’t take a step back this season? Or if the Blazers inked Paul Millsap or Hedo Turkoglu rather than Andre Miller in the off-season, would we even be discussing which type of player operates best alongside Roy? The situation is always fluid and always unique. Although it’s nice to rise each morning and go to sleep each night with a mission statement and a roster full of talent under your pillow, finding success as a team is rarely about such glittering generalities. The Blazers may be better off than the league’s have-nots, but Kevin Pritchard, Nate McMillan, and the Blazer brain trust still have plenty to figure out.

File>New>New File>New File Name: The LaMarcus Aldridge Exodus- Prologue

November 30, 2009 in by with 0 Comments

2. Greg Oden needs to assume LaMarcus’ traditional role as the guy who gets established offensively early in games and quarters.

Oden is a bona fide low post presence who can pass. He gives us a different wrinkle than anybody else on the team. With his physical presence and his high shooting percentage he potentially creates the inside-out game that is the key to success in the halfcourt. LaMarcus, for all his skill, does not change the game that way, nor does he create the same kind of mismatches, nor the same kind of space on the floor for his teammates. We’ve softened the blow by giving LaMarcus alternate scoring opportunities that his fellow stars won’t have. But Greg needs to be the initial offensive option in the game. Make or miss, he’s going to create better opportunities for others.

via Figuring It Out – Blazersedge.

HUGE, GIGANTIC, GINORMOUS PREFACE: In article quoted above, nowhere does Dave suggest what I’m suggesting, and in fact, he heartily supports LAldridge and his “special gifts.” So just so no one thinks I’m misinterpreting what he’s saying, I get totally what he’s selling. I’m just taking it a step further.

Dave from BlazersEdge covers the ins and outs of what plan should be taken by the Blazers during this challenging time. There’s no need to panic, no need to readjust the roster, no massive overhaul that needs to take place. This is the “Let’s get back to the root of our business” memo. Or, alternatively, the “Come to Moses” talk. Lots of interesting stuff in there, but number two immediately stuck out to me.

When Greg Oden was drafted, it was assumed that he would be the savior. The amazing inside counterpart to Brandon Roy. When LaMarcus Aldridge was drafted, and for the first few years in the league, he was largely considered an afterthought. But he just kept improving. And improving. And becoming a bigger and bigger part of the offense. 17 and 7 with a block. When Oden struggled last year in his “first” year in the league, Aldridge carried them. And still, there was always the same refrain from the Blazer faithful. “Just wait till we get Oden!”

The problem is, and this has been evident for quite some time, that there may not room for both of them. The immediate impact of Oden’s ascension this season has been mild. Aldridge’s rebound numbers are actually up, while his points and PER have dropped. Last year was optimum, where he was playing his most efficient ball, while having a lower usage than in the previous year. Now his usage is at the lowest its been since 07, but he’s not shooting as well.

You’d assume part of this would be Oden pushing Aldridge out, moving him further towards the perimeter. But he’s attempting fewer 16-23 foot, 11-15 foot, and three point jumpers than he has since ’07. He’s just also shooting fewer shots over all. His attempts are up at less than ten feet, but his percentages are down at the rim and between 11 and 15 feet. He’s adapting, focusing on using the distraction of Oden to set up his long-range jumper (in tune with what we’ve seen from power forwards), and attacking at the rim.

So why is his production down? Because Oden is a high-usage player. He needs the ball. Dave’s exactly right that Oden needs to be activated early, involved. It not only gets his blood warmed up, but forces the defense to adjust to that for the remainder of the game. It’s vital that he take up his fair share of possessions. But the thing is, Portland, for all its attempts at running and gunning, is still last in the league in PACE, with 90.2 possessions per 48 minutes. Every possession is precious, and there’s not that many to go around.

Now, from a basketball standpoint, maybe this will all be fine. There are comparisons about Aldridge being likened to Rashard Lewis or Rasheed Wallace. But perhaps a better comparison is Lamar Odom, with a reverse hype trajectory. Odom manages a moderate level of usage, plugs in above average but not stellar PER, makes the most of his opportunities, and uses his versatility, while flowing around the dominant abilities of his All-World small guard and dominant big man Gasol.  So by the same model, couldn’t Aldridge fit that model? The answer: definitely. The second question is if he wants to.

Aldridge is notoriously sensitive. I won’t recite the Brandon Roy dinner story because you’ve all likely heard about it and if not, go do some googling, it’s not hard to find in ESPN THE MAGAZINE. He was just given this massive contract extension by the Blazers which you would think would make him grateful and committed, but so often it just means to the players “Hey, I’m the one you paid. Let me do my job.”

You could see this becoming an issue as Oden develops and needs more and more touches, while Roy keeps ascending and Rudy becomes the clutch shooter and the rest of the roster fills out. Where does LaMarcus fit in? Is he really going to go from floor leader and second top weapon to role player third fiddle, especially given his weak passing skills? I’m sure Aldridge is committed to Portland at this point of time and can’t imagine going anywhere else. But given how the franchise has hyped Oden every second from the second he was drafted while treating Aldridge as a “nice suprise,” you have to wonder if eventually that’s going to get old. After all, you put the cart before the horse and the horse starts to wonder what it is that you’re doing.