Reply With Quote
Oh and Rin. 3 pts 5 TOs in his return to HOU
Kobe is loving it. "Listen if that's what's rolling. That's what's rolling."
Oh and Rin. 3 pts 5 TOs in his return to HOU
Why The Lakers' Brand Of Suck Matters
Today 2:07pm
EXPAND
That Nick Young's return to the lineup would coincide with the Lakers' ascent from gonzo terribleness to bland mediocrity fits, really. Both because at every stop in his NBA career Nick Young has done whatever would annoy me the most, but also because "Swaggy P" is the basketball embodiment of a twee, boring, self-consciously internet-friendly, Lil-B-nihilistic, put-on eccentricity that is both the opposite and the death of the authentic, full-throated, bat insanity that had made the Lakers so fun this season.
This is to say that what has made the Lakers such a great spectacle before now was the absolute conviction with which they did the dumb they did. Byron Scott believes in his harebrained notions of toughness and winning basketball. Kobe Bryant believes in his Solitary Basketball Assassin persona, that it will bring him victory, or at least absolve him of responsibility for defeat. That's funny! Byron and Kobe were going down with the ship, but only because they kept blasting cannons directly into the deck and calling it navigation.
They sucked, but sucked gloriously. Now they just suck. Which is boring! The Magic suck, but nobody cares about that; the Magic suck because they're being patient in the process of becoming good. Wanting to be good, and being willing to eat some to get there, is what NBA teams are supposed to do, and it's rational, which is not entertaining. The Lakers might want to be good, too, but more than that, they want to be vindicated. That's much funnier.
I've been writing about the Lakers since the opening of this season, and a common charge from commenters is that I am a Laker hater. This is false. I've enjoyed the Lakers' failures, sure, but not because I hate them. I love them. Until now, at least, their badness went proudly against the prevailing trends in a sport that is getting both smarter and a little duller. Their badness was a rebuke.
The growth of advanced analysis and econometric front-office thinking in the NBA has done cool stuff for the game. Across the league, teams play faster, smarter, more sophisticated basketball than they did 15 years ago. The D-and-3 wing, the pick-and-pop big, the rise of the corner 3, and the idea of warping a defense with ball movement instead of watching Desmond ing Mason dribble for 13 seconds per possession—all of these cool things happened because people got smarter and more systematic in their thinking about how basketball works and how best to play it. That's great. It's a great development. Anyone who watched the NBA in 1999 would agree, and also reflexively make the sign of the Evil Eye at the memory of what the NBA was like in 1999.
On the other hand, there's a sameyness to a lot of the basketball being played today, a sense that now we know the most efficient ways to play it, and that the future of basketball might just come down to seeing which turkey-necked general manager doofus navigates the CBA most effectively in a given year. In the midst of all that, it's nice—it's rapturous, amazing, astonishing!—to have a team like the Lakers doing such baldly retrograde (turning down open threes to have bad, slow players try to drive the lane; putting nearly 40 percent of the team's possessions in the hands of a 36-year-old lunatic with more basketball on his physiological odometer than virtually any living person; having Carlos Boozer do pretty much anything on a basketball court other than walk off it) for reasons that square to absolutely no degree with the basketball culture's prevailing notions of rationality and efficiency. And to have the team doing that be the Lakers, of all the teams, and to have its star be Kobe Bryant, of all the stars, with God and the world and Jack Nicholson watching. The absurdity of it. The beautiful doomed insanity of it. It is—was?—almost everything I like best about humanity. The Lakers are the way they are because of the people they are, and no one else can be them, and that's the best thing to watch on TV.
Well, they've won two games in a row now. First over the terminally dreary Hawks, which also makes sense, because the Hawks are the quiet organic chemistry textbook library where fun things go to die. If the Hawks played a seven-game series against Satan and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse with the fate of the universe in the balance, it'd get shunted over to NBA TV to make room on TNT for reruns of Bones, and rightly so. Of course the Hawks lost to the Lakers. They are basketball soundproofing. Their job is to produce whichever outcome makes you change the channel.
And then, last night, the Lakers took down the Rockets, who were without Dwight Howard and any idea what the they are doing. And this—Dwight Howard rendering the Lakers less enjoyable—also makes sense. It's what he did the entire year he was a Laker, after all.
Yeah, too much makes sense around the Lakers, now. They are not a Looney Tunes cartoon come to life anymore. Now they're just a basketball team that sucks. They're 3-9, better by winning percentage than the Sixers, Thunder, and Knicks. They've transitioned from a team that will find a way to lose even when its opponent plays like to a team that will do the rational thing and accept a victory when offered one. That's boring. Booooooooo.
On the other hand, at this rate, they might just piss away their lottery pick, consigning themselves to another year of pretty much exactly this, only with an even older and more insane Kobe Bryant. That would be ridiculous as ! I could talk myself into that.
Nick Young received a flop warning from the NBA on Thursday.
Young drew a foul on Kyle Korver while attempting a 3-point shot, and as the video shows, Korver did not even make contact with Young. The first offense is just a warning, but the second results in a $5,000 fine, with each additional flop resulting in an increased penalty. Young has brought a much-needed scoring-punch to the Lakers' second unit, and is averaging 17.0 points and 2.0 three-pointers through his first two games. He doesn't do much aside from score, but should be able to sustain limited value in standard leagues.
This thread will blow up if the Lakers beats the Mavericks tonight...
The Lakers doesn't even have to beat the Mavs, they just have to keep it close and not lose by 20 points.
We could have swaggy p when he was a free agent.
Damn, beautiful words, tbh..I love fans and media that appreciate the growth of the game..Why The Lakers' Brand Of Suck Matters
Today 2:07pm
That Nick Young's return to the lineup would coincide with the Lakers' ascent from gonzo terribleness to bland mediocrity fits, really. Both because at every stop in his NBA career Nick Young has done whatever would annoy me the most, but also because "Swaggy P" is the basketball embodiment of a twee, boring, self-consciously internet-friendly, Lil-B-nihilistic, put-on eccentricity that is both the opposite and the death of the authentic, full-throated, bat insanity that had made the Lakers so fun this season.
This is to say that what has made the Lakers such a great spectacle before now was the absolute conviction with which they did the dumb they did. Byron Scott believes in his harebrained notions of toughness and winning basketball. Kobe Bryant believes in his Solitary Basketball Assassin persona, that it will bring him victory, or at least absolve him of responsibility for defeat. That's funny! Byron and Kobe were going down with the ship, but only because they kept blasting cannons directly into the deck and calling it navigation.
They sucked, but sucked gloriously. Now they just suck. Which is boring! The Magic suck, but nobody cares about that; the Magic suck because they're being patient in the process of becoming good. Wanting to be good, and being willing to eat some to get there, is what NBA teams are supposed to do, and it's rational, which is not entertaining. The Lakers might want to be good, too, but more than that, they want to be vindicated. That's much funnier.
I've been writing about the Lakers since the opening of this season, and a common charge from commenters is that I am a Laker hater. This is false. I've enjoyed the Lakers' failures, sure, but not because I hate them. I love them. Until now, at least, their badness went proudly against the prevailing trends in a sport that is getting both smarter and a little duller. Their badness was a rebuke.
The growth of advanced analysis and econometric front-office thinking in the NBA has done cool stuff for the game. Across the league, teams play faster, smarter, more sophisticated basketball than they did 15 years ago. The D-and-3 wing, the pick-and-pop big, the rise of the corner 3, and the idea of warping a defense with ball movement instead of watching Desmond ing Mason dribble for 13 seconds per possession—all of these cool things happened because people got smarter and more systematic in their thinking about how basketball works and how best to play it. That's great. It's a great development. Anyone who watched the NBA in 1999 would agree, and also reflexively make the sign of the Evil Eye at the memory of what the NBA was like in 1999.
On the other hand, there's a sameyness to a lot of the basketball being played today, a sense that now we know the most efficient ways to play it, and that the future of basketball might just come down to seeing which turkey-necked general manager doofus navigates the CBA most effectively in a given year. In the midst of all that, it's nice—it's rapturous, amazing, astonishing!—to have a team like the Lakers doing such baldly retrograde (turning down open threes to have bad, slow players try to drive the lane; putting nearly 40 percent of the team's possessions in the hands of a 36-year-old lunatic with more basketball on his physiological odometer than virtually any living person; having Carlos Boozer do pretty much anything on a basketball court other than walk off it) for reasons that square to absolutely no degree with the basketball culture's prevailing notions of rationality and efficiency. And to have the team doing that be the Lakers, of all the teams, and to have its star be Kobe Bryant, of all the stars, with God and the world and Jack Nicholson watching. The absurdity of it. The beautiful doomed insanity of it. It is—was?—almost everything I like best about humanity. The Lakers are the way they are because of the people they are, and no one else can be them, and that's the best thing to watch on TV.
Well, they've won two games in a row now. First over the terminally dreary Hawks, which also makes sense, because the Hawks are the quiet organic chemistry textbook library where fun things go to die. If the Hawks played a seven-game series against Satan and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse with the fate of the universe in the balance, it'd get shunted over to NBA TV to make room on TNT for reruns of Bones, and rightly so. Of course the Hawks lost to the Lakers. They are basketball soundproofing. Their job is to produce whichever outcome makes you change the channel.
And then, last night, the Lakers took down the Rockets, who were without Dwight Howard and any idea what the they are doing. And this—Dwight Howard rendering the Lakers less enjoyable—also makes sense. It's what he did the entire year he was a Laker, after all.
Yeah, too much makes sense around the Lakers, now. They are not a Looney Tunes cartoon come to life anymore. Now they're just a basketball team that sucks. They're 3-9, better by winning percentage than the Sixers, Thunder, and Knicks. They've transitioned from a team that will find a way to lose even when its opponent plays like to a team that will do the rational thing and accept a victory when offered one. That's boring. Booooooooo.
On the other hand, at this rate, they might just piss away their lottery pick, consigning themselves to another year of pretty much exactly this, only with an even older and more insane Kobe Bryant. That would be ridiculous as ! I could talk myself into that.
Who wrote this?..
Smush Parker
Honestly, the difference between current Kobe and 1998 Dad Killer isn't substantial IMO..
If you replace Kobe with 1998 DK in today's era with the advanced level of play, and put him on a team with one of the worst coaches and supporting casts in the league, I don't think the Lakers would have a better record than 3-9..
If you put Kobe on the '98 Bulls with Phil, Scottie and Dennis, in the slow-paced, antiquated era of basketball, Bulls still win that championship IMO..
..that 25-5-5 on the Achilles that made Daddy take up the rocking chair is a real kick in the teeth, eh?
tee, hee.
^ Malik Hairston. That is way too obvious of a troll job.
He's gonna run MJ to ground then take off after the other two. The only way you'll stop him is to black ball him like they black balled Dave Kingman.
Not even swaggy MVP can save this steaming pile of crap.
Swaggy P is back. First the buzzer beater vs. the Spurs, then leading the team to another victory over the Wolves.
The Lakers won 3 in a row people, 3 in a row. Including a win over the defending champs, and you are telling me this roster doesn't have the talent to win 35+ games this year?
The Lakers are 7-7 in the last 14 games with Swaggy P, and only 1-9 without him.
The results don't lie y'all. SwaggyMVP is the real deal.
Respect.
Lol leading a win over Wolves ... Boozer's sorry a$$ was probably the most effective player (hate to admit it) ...but I am sure some advanced metric, your hate will tell some other story.
Lakers aren't bottom 5 bad.
When healthy absolutely not because teams are worse not because the Lakers are good or even 35 win good. Amb is smoking dat ..don't patronize him. We may not be as bad as Harlem says but we are closer to that than to what Amb thinks we would be with more "sharing".
^There is certainly a lot of bottoms to feed on. I like a good bottom. It's all moist and gooey, smells vaguely like a train compartment, like . Just grovel in it for about a week, maybe a week and a half.
CHARGE!!!!!!
When Kobe is leading the team to missed playoffs and first round exits, you would hail him as some kind of hero and absolve him of any blame.
Now SwaggyMVP is leading the Lakers to a respectable record, you go and minimize his contributions and try to reduce his significance.
I don't get you Killa, here is a player who, despite the dire situation the Lakers are in, go out and produce, go out and play, leading the Lakers to a .500 record, a Lakers team that was only .100 without him. Put that in perspective, he is turning an 8-win team (worse than the 9-73 Sixers) to a 41-41 team (borderline playoff team), and you are ragging on him? I thought you are a Lakers fan!
Even in the current situation, I'd take the Lakers roster without Kobe over:
Wolves
6ers
Pistons
Knicks
Pacers
Boston
Hornets
Jazz
Nuggets
Kings (with Cousins injured, but not when Cousins is back)
Magic
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
