There are 20 regular season games left on the Lakers’ schedule. Since the All-Star Game the trade deadline has come and gone, and all the attention has turned to the playoff race. Wins and losses are more emphasized as seeding begins to take shape and home-court advantage is determined.
Despite a 5-0 start after the All-Star break, I think we’ll still hear the recurring rants of age and complacency from the media. So I thought we should take a closer look at some actual numbers. I have always felt there is much to be said about trends and rankings. So, to make it interesting, we’ll compare what happened during the Lakers’ first three-peat to what’s happening in their current campaign. To do that, let’s narrow it down to three major categories – conference standing, points and rebounds.
Let’s start with the overall picture. Before the 2000 playoffs, the Lakers finished 1st in the West during the regular season with a 67-15 record. They finished 2nd in 2001 at 56-26, and 3rd in 2002 at 58-24. Their record significantly dropped the latter two years, and so did their conference rank. In fact, in 2002 they didn’t even win the Pacific Division, Sacramento did. Heading into the 2002 playoffs, as two-time defending champions, the Lakers had big, big problems. Was it now Kobe’s team? Was it still Shaq’s team? Could Phil bring these misfits together? Why couldn’t they even win their own division?
Fast forward. In 2009, the Lakers finished atop the West at 65-17, again in 2010 at 56-26 and in the middle of February, 2011, currently sit 3rd in the conference at 43-19. Now before we move on, let’s imagine the season has ended. The Lakers’ current winning percentage is .694. If they keep on that track, they win 13 games and lose 9. I took a look at the remaining schedule and, completely free-handed and objective, tallied up my guesses of wins and losses. Sure enough it came out to exactly 13-9. So I’ll go with that. The Lakers are two games behind Dallas. I feel Dallas’ remaining schedule is a tad more favorable, so I’ll keep them as finishing 2nd in the conference. I project the Lakers to finish 3rd, just like they did in 2002.
It’s extremely hard for any team in any sport to finish at the top of their conference three years in a row (which the Lakers have already done from 2008-2010), even if it is a defending championship team. We all know the Lakers do not necessarily need to finish strong. They need to finish healthy. While the team’s road trip before the All-Star break was mostly successful, the only time my heart really jumped was when Andrew Bynum was shown holding his leg after an offensive series against Orlando.
Kobe Bryant addressed this very issue back in January in some post-game comments after beating Detroit by 25 points. The difference between his 2002 team and his 2011 team? Bryant explained that while both teams were awful, the 2002 team was dysfunctional. “It’s much better now than it was [then]?” Bryant said.
Next Scoring and Rebounds
I’m not going to argue with the old saying that “defense wins championships.” That truth is older than I am. In the grind of a seven-game series, nothing can get you back into a game or shut the door behind you like good, solid defense. But I will argue that you need guys that can fill the bucket.
Shaquille O’Neal was the 2000 league scoring champion. Bryant finished 12th. In 2001, O’Neal finished 3rd in the scoring race, and Bryant 4th. And in 2002, O’Neal finished 2nd, and Bryant was 6th. Except for the first year, the Lakers had two scorers in the top 10. The Lakers were the ultimate two-handed boxer.
How about now? Bryant finished 2009 in 3rd, and Gasol at 36th. Whoa! What the…?! In 2010, Bryant placed, 4th and Gasol 32nd. Ouch! Currently, Bryant sits at 6th and Gasol 30th. These are completely contrasting numbers. How do the Lakers even stay competitive with such a difference in scoring from their All-Stars? You would think that a team in the middle of their second three-peat campaign would have two guys that can put points on the board…right?
The answer to this riddle, and last leg of our discussion, lies on the glass. What the current squad lacks in scoring, it makes up for in rebounds. O’Neal finished 3rd, 4th and 8th in league rebounds during those championship years. Behind him, no other Laker even finished in the top 40. He was the Lakers’ only real source of loose balls off the glass. Pau Gasol finished 2009 and 2010 at 15th and 5th, respectively. He is currently 9th overall. The key to this equation is Lamar Odom.
Yes, Odom.
Odom ranked 31st in 2009, 16th in 2010 and currently ranks 21st. Bynum, as an added bonus, also makes the list ranked at 35th. That’s three Lakers in the top 40 rebounders.
In my opinion, while defensive rebounds create possessions, offensive rebounds create points. I feel offensive rebounds work heavily in favor of the rebounding team. The rebounder is already in the immediate proximity of the basket and is usually in good position for a put-back. Or, if the rebounder outlets to the perimeter, the defensive team is usually in a momentary state of disarray. That first outlet pass to the outside is either a great time to get an open look or start a round of passing while the defense takes a second to find their rotations.
The first championship team was a scoring team with two phenom-ballers who could both put up points. And most the time they were at wits end with each other while doing so. Our current Lakers squad is a bit more well-rounded from top to bottom. Oh, and they actually like one another.
Obviously the characters have changed, but the trends and rankings are strikingly similar and compliment each other well, and that’s a great sign. Are we happy with the Lakers’ regular season play when we want to be? Probably not. Will we see a couple more inexcusable losses before the regular season ends? Count on it. Will we probably see a couple painful losses in the playoffs? Be prepared folks.
But are they in a position to make a legitimate run at their third straight championship and 17th in franchise history based on factual numbers that matter and not just talent and expectation? Absolutely.