Author Topic: Rationalizing the C's chances: A comparison of Lakers-Bulls; Kobe-Jordan  (Read 10962 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Barnabas

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 290
  • Tommy Points: 11
The best person to ask would be Coach Chuck Daly.  And Coach Jerry Sloan.  They must have spent countless hours trying to puzzle out just how to disrupt the Triangle Offense of the Bulls.  The Pistons, Jazz, and the Knicks of that time period, basically played very physical.  They grabbed, held, and shoved the Chicago players to keep them from getting to their spot on the floor.  I've read that Utah should have played a more physical game against the Bulls.

If the referees are not going to allow very physical play, and if they want a very clean game, then the Celtics will have little chance of defending the triangle.  As someone said earlier, Gasol is the perfect big man to play in this system.  Radmanovic, despite his shortcomings, is there specifically because he fulfills the needs of that system. 

Offline GroverTheClover

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1296
  • Tommy Points: 167
Just like the Spurs fans, the Celtics fans are not giving the Lakers any respect.   And that's just the way I like it.

Just like the Pistons fans, the Lakers fans are not giving the Celtics any respect.  And that's just the way I like it.






Just kidding, I could really care less about what Laker fans think.

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
NeuroticGuy "If Thibedeau is a defensive master, why would he be unable to formulate a plan (at least some wrinkle) to disrupt the trangle given the time to develop such a game plan and 3 full days to practice its execution?  "

It'll be interesting what kind of defensive plan the Celtic coaching staff will come up with.  I'm no expert but from all I've heard and read of the Triangle Offense, there are a wide array of possible responses to a given move by the defense.  So, if the Triangle is that complex, it must also be hard to anticipate what the offense is going to do.  If there are many possible actions the offense can take, then the defense also may need to have just as many ways to react.  The more questions on a test, the more material the test can cover.  Hence, the more material you have to study.  I don't know. 

I read that the teams that have defended Chicago's implementation of the triangle well in the past were the Pistons and the Knicks.  They played very physical, dirty defense.  They were holding, grabbing, bumping, clipping the Chicago players.  The goal was probably to delay them, upset their timing, or prevent them from getting to their specific spot, as the triangle is very structured.  Like you said, to disrupt the offense.  As we can tell looking back on history, that must have been very hard to do, and that NY and Detroit were not completely successfull at it, elsewise, Chicago would not have won all those banners! 

  I think you're confusing "can't stop the triangle offense" with "can't stop Jordan". If that offense was so hard to stop almost everybody would run it.

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Just like the Spurs fans, the Celtics fans are not giving the Lakers any respect.   And that's just the way I like it.

???



What?   You expected us to pick the Lakers?  You expected us to put Kobe on the same level as Jordon?   




Do you understand what respect in sports is?  It is not saying the other guy is 'better'.  Especially when it is not true.


It is understanding that this will be a hard fought series. 

Offline orrzor

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1085
  • Tommy Points: 58
I don't see how comparing the Lakers to the Bulls and the Celtics to Bulls competition helps matters in any regard. There is just so much that is different between these 2 pairs that I think it's useless to compare. Much better to compare Celtics of now to competition of now that has fared well against the Lakers IMO.

Offline drza44

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 749
  • Tommy Points: 187
1) Re: Kobe vs. Mike.  Kobe is not as good as Jordan was, but he is vying to be the Jordan of this era.  In style and substance with respect to the competition it is similar enough to at least make this an interesting message board topic.  But on the whole, Jordan was still better.

2) Re: Celtics vs. Bulls' competition.  Jordan never faced a team like the Celtics in a two key ways. 

A) He never faced a big man like KG.  Malone, Barkley and Kemp were big offensive performers, but none could control the defensive end like KG.  And since they all had second options that were PGs/facilitators (KJ, Stockton, and Payton), they HAD to score with Jordan for their teams to have a chance (and they couldn't, ultimately).  On the other hand, Kobe could outscore KG by 10 points every game but still be at a disadvantage if KG is controlling the defensive end and still applying offensive pressure.

B) He never faced a team with two scoring wings like Pierce and Allen.  The only time Jordan faced a SG anywhere in his stratosphere during the championship runs was when he went against Drexler, but Drexler was in many ways just a poor-man's Jordan and the rest of the Bulls were better than the rest of the Blazers so if Jordan won the 1-on-1 with Drexler (which he did) the series was over.  Generally, Jordan faced teams with the strong PF/PG combo (Malone/Stockton twice, Barkley/KJ, Kemp/Payton) and if he outscored the big man #1 option the team was done.  Here, though, Pierce and Allen have each independently shown that they can go eye-to-eye with Kobe Bryant and play him to a standstill.  The Celtics dynamic won't let them go 1-on-1 now, but the fact that there are two wingmen that can each approximate Kobe and neither of them are the best player on the team...Jordan never faced anything like that.

3) The Bulls had a better supporting cast than the Lakers (especially after 1991) because the core had experience winning championships in their roles.  Jordan had won a title as the man, Pippen had won a title as the second option, Grant (then later Rodman) had experience winning titles in the roles that they played.  It was a system, and the tough-minded vets that eventually plugged into the key roles made them exceedingly hard to rattle.  This Lakers supporting cast is largely young and untested outside of Fisher.  Gasol and Odom have never been known to be as mentally tough as Pippen and Grant/Rodman, and most of the other guys they depend on are youngsters.  Give me the Bulls supporting cast hands-down.

In summary, while this was an interesting thought exercise, after putting it through the paces this comparison doesn't make me feel more worried.  In fact, really analyzing it makes me more assured that this should at the worst be a very good series, and that the Celtics definitely have the pieces to pull this off.

Offline iowa plowboy

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1697
  • Tommy Points: 113
All I'm saying is I think a better comparison to the Bulls of the 90's would be the Lakers with Shak and Kobe. 2 greats vs 2 greats. This series is 2 greats plus a very good Ray Allen vs Kobe. It shouldn't even be close!
[/quote]

There is no comparison between Kobe as a player and anybody on our team.  The playoffs will be close because of the coaching mismatch and the talent being close to equal.

I'm a Paul Pierce fan.  But comparing him to Kobe by calling them "greats" is ludicrous.  Paul isn't close to the player Kobe is.  That's no insult to Paul because nobody else is either.  Even with the great strides Paul has made defensively this year.  Kobe took a less talented team than we had last year to the playoffs.  Paul needed Kevin to make the playoffs.  Kevin needed Paul to do the same. 

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
All I'm saying is I think a better comparison to the Bulls of the 90's would be the Lakers with Shak and Kobe. 2 greats vs 2 greats. This series is 2 greats plus a very good Ray Allen vs Kobe. It shouldn't even be close!

There is no comparison between Kobe as a player and anybody on our team.  The playoffs will be close because of the coaching mismatch and the talent being close to equal.

I'm a Paul Pierce fan.  But comparing him to Kobe by calling them "greats" is ludicrous.  Paul isn't close to the player Kobe is.  That's no insult to Paul because nobody else is either.  Even with the great strides Paul has made defensively this year.  Kobe took a less talented team than we had last year to the playoffs.  Paul needed Kevin to make the playoffs.  Kevin needed Paul to do the same. 
[/quote]

  Saying Kobe had a less talented team is awfully misleading. They were clearly more NBA-ready than Paul's group. 5 of their top 6 in minutes played was 25 or older. 1 of our top 8 was. Kobe wouldn't have led us to the playoffs (especially missing 35 games like Paul did).

Offline Jon

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6499
  • Tommy Points: 385
All I'm saying is I think a better comparison to the Bulls of the 90's would be the Lakers with Shak and Kobe. 2 greats vs 2 greats. This series is 2 greats plus a very good Ray Allen vs Kobe. It shouldn't even be close!

There is no comparison between Kobe as a player and anybody on our team.  The playoffs will be close because of the coaching mismatch and the talent being close to equal.

I'm a Paul Pierce fan.  But comparing him to Kobe by calling them "greats" is ludicrous.  Paul isn't close to the player Kobe is.  That's no insult to Paul because nobody else is either.  Even with the great strides Paul has made defensively this year.  Kobe took a less talented team than we had last year to the playoffs.  Paul needed Kevin to make the playoffs.  Kevin needed Paul to do the same. 

  Saying Kobe had a less talented team is awfully misleading. They were clearly more NBA-ready than Paul's group. 5 of their top 6 in minutes played was 25 or older. 1 of our top 8 was. Kobe wouldn't have led us to the playoffs (especially missing 35 games like Paul did).
[/quote]

Let's also keep in mind that while Kobe is better than Paul Pierce and Ray Allen, that gap narrows a bit when Kobe is facing Pierce/Posey on the defensive end and either Allen or Pierce is facing Vladimir Radmanovic. 

Offline Finkelskyhook

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2887
  • Tommy Points: 285
Jon said:
Saying Kobe had a less talented team is awfully misleading. They were clearly more NBA-ready than Paul's group. 5 of their top 6 in minutes played was 25 or older. 1 of our top 8 was. Kobe wouldn't have led us to the playoffs (especially missing 35 games like Paul did).



The difference between last year's teams?  Coaching is the obvious glaring difference.  The only Laker close to Al Jefferson was Odom.  That is, when he felt like playing close to his talent.  The Lakers had no point guard, an injured Radmanovic, and as big a project as Perk in Bynum, and a servicable small forward.  The C's had Rondo (who inexplicably didn't play half the year), one of the best young power forwards in the game, a servicable small forward, a bunch of youngsters, no coach, and no leadership from their best player.

The difference between the two teams, One team's best player, coaches, and management refused to concede in spite of a lack of talent.  The other team's best player, coaches, and management laid down.  Say what you want about Kobe being arrogant, a bad teammate, etc.  He has never laid down.  He has never sat out without a debilitating injury.  I despise Jackson.  But he would never concede anything.  He'd quit first.   Paul had no business missing the games after the Orlando game.  Paul was a warrior before and after last season.  Last season Paul tanked like his managemnt and coaches. 

Had Paul been on the Lakers last season, they wouldn't have made the playoffs.  Had Kobe been on the Celtics last season, they would have.

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Jon said:
Saying Kobe had a less talented team is awfully misleading. They were clearly more NBA-ready than Paul's group. 5 of their top 6 in minutes played was 25 or older. 1 of our top 8 was. Kobe wouldn't have led us to the playoffs (especially missing 35 games like Paul did).



The difference between last year's teams?  Coaching is the obvious glaring difference.  The only Laker close to Al Jefferson was Odom.  That is, when he felt like playing close to his talent.  The Lakers had no point guard, an injured Radmanovic, and as big a project as Perk in Bynum, and a servicable small forward.  The C's had Rondo (who inexplicably didn't play half the year), one of the best young power forwards in the game, a servicable small forward, a bunch of youngsters, no coach, and no leadership from their best player.

The difference between the two teams, One team's best player, coaches, and management refused to concede in spite of a lack of talent.  The other team's best player, coaches, and management laid down.  Say what you want about Kobe being arrogant, a bad teammate, etc.  He has never laid down.  He has never sat out without a debilitating injury.  I despise Jackson.  But he would never concede anything.  He'd quit first.   Paul had no business missing the games after the Orlando game.  Paul was a warrior before and after last season.  Last season Paul tanked like his managemnt and coaches. 

Had Paul been on the Lakers last season, they wouldn't have made the playoffs.  Had Kobe been on the Celtics last season, they would have.

  Are you serious? For starters, the Celts were 2-22 when Paul had his foot injury. That means that with Kobe would have to lead the team to a 39-19 record for the rest of the season to make the playoffs. Only 3 teams in the entire league had a better winning percentage than that (67%) last year. You think you can take Kobe, a rookie Rondo, Al, a hobbled Perk and Ryan Gomes and have one of the top 4 teams in the league?

Offline td450

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2330
  • Tommy Points: 254
Jordan in his prime was able to destroy other stars.  The Karl Malone's and Clyde Drexlers of the league would be badly out played in the playoffs. Part of this was that Jordan was the best defender in the league, and he played with perhaps the second best defender in Pippen, as well as at least one other great defender in Grant or Rodman. The cumulative effect was that the other team's wing players were overwhelmed.

Kobe is an excellent defender, but he isn't dominant in the sense Jordan was. Someone like Pierce or even Ray Allen isn't afraid of him. It was very rare when Jordan wasn't far and away the most dominant guy on the floor in EVERY playoff game. My guess is Pierce will have at least two games where he is equal or better than Kobe, particularly because Kobe doesn't have a complimentary dominant wing guy to help him. Pierce is stronger than Kobe and he can't be locked down by him. Jordan never had that problem against anyone I remember.

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23319
  • Tommy Points: 2509
1) Re: Kobe vs. Mike.  Kobe is not as good as Jordan was, but he is vying to be the Jordan of this era.  In style and substance with respect to the competition it is similar enough to at least make this an interesting message board topic.  But on the whole, Jordan was still better.

2) Re: Celtics vs. Bulls' competition.  Jordan never faced a team like the Celtics in a two key ways. 

A) He never faced a big man like KG.  Malone, Barkley and Kemp were big offensive performers, but none could control the defensive end like KG.  And since they all had second options that were PGs/facilitators (KJ, Stockton, and Payton), they HAD to score with Jordan for their teams to have a chance (and they couldn't, ultimately).  On the other hand, Kobe could outscore KG by 10 points every game but still be at a disadvantage if KG is controlling the defensive end and still applying offensive pressure.

B) He never faced a team with two scoring wings like Pierce and Allen.  The only time Jordan faced a SG anywhere in his stratosphere during the championship runs was when he went against Drexler, but Drexler was in many ways just a poor-man's Jordan and the rest of the Bulls were better than the rest of the Blazers so if Jordan won the 1-on-1 with Drexler (which he did) the series was over.  Generally, Jordan faced teams with the strong PF/PG combo (Malone/Stockton twice, Barkley/KJ, Kemp/Payton) and if he outscored the big man #1 option the team was done.  Here, though, Pierce and Allen have each independently shown that they can go eye-to-eye with Kobe Bryant and play him to a standstill.  The Celtics dynamic won't let them go 1-on-1 now, but the fact that there are two wingmen that can each approximate Kobe and neither of them are the best player on the team...Jordan never faced anything like that.

3) The Bulls had a better supporting cast than the Lakers (especially after 1991) because the core had experience winning championships in their roles.  Jordan had won a title as the man, Pippen had won a title as the second option, Grant (then later Rodman) had experience winning titles in the roles that they played.  It was a system, and the tough-minded vets that eventually plugged into the key roles made them exceedingly hard to rattle.  This Lakers supporting cast is largely young and untested outside of Fisher.  Gasol and Odom have never been known to be as mentally tough as Pippen and Grant/Rodman, and most of the other guys they depend on are youngsters.  Give me the Bulls supporting cast hands-down.

In summary, while this was an interesting thought exercise, after putting it through the paces this comparison doesn't make me feel more worried.  In fact, really analyzing it makes me more assured that this should at the worst be a very good series, and that the Celtics definitely have the pieces to pull this off.

TP for an eccellent post.  Great analysis -- thanks!

Offline Finkelskyhook

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2887
  • Tommy Points: 285
From Bballtim:
Are you serious? For starters, the Celts were 2-22 when Paul had his foot injury. That means that with Kobe would have to lead the team to a 39-19 record for the rest of the season to make the playoffs. Only 3 teams in the entire league had a better winning percentage than that (67%) last year. You think you can take Kobe, a rookie Rondo, Al, a hobbled Perk and Ryan Gomes and have one of the top 4 teams in the league?


No, I don't.  But Kobe on any team makes the playoffs in the east easily.  First of all, even with Rivers as his coach, Kobe is too competitive to bow to any company line and tank.  He has no history of sitting out with a bogus injury no matter who his management is.  Kobe would have played the remaining games after the Orlando game last year and would not have stood by and watch Gomes, West, and Al sit out with bogus injuries. 

From tdl450:
Jordan in his prime was able to destroy other stars.  The Karl Malone's and Clyde Drexlers of the league would be badly out played in the playoffs. Part of this was that Jordan was the best defender in the league, and he played with perhaps the second best defender in Pippen, as well as at least one other great defender in Grant or Rodman. The cumulative effect was that the other team's wing players were overwhelmed.


Part of this also was what Jordan got away with because he was officiated like the Messiah.  Any player, especially a great one, can be superior when he can travel, hack, and push off without getting called for any of it at all.  While the rest of the NBA was officiated by the rulebook.  (Do you think Utah remembers?) 
 
Kobe gets some calls.  But for the most part, he's on a level at or slightly below the stars in the way he's officiated.  I don't think the officials "hate him" as I've seen in other posts.  But Kobe gets no more calls than the Iversons, Pierces, or Anthonys of the NBA.  Because of that, comparing Kobe to Jordan is an excercise in futility.


Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
From Bballtim:
Are you serious? For starters, the Celts were 2-22 when Paul had his foot injury. That means that with Kobe would have to lead the team to a 39-19 record for the rest of the season to make the playoffs. Only 3 teams in the entire league had a better winning percentage than that (67%) last year. You think you can take Kobe, a rookie Rondo, Al, a hobbled Perk and Ryan Gomes and have one of the top 4 teams in the league?


No, I don't.  But Kobe on any team makes the playoffs in the east easily.  First of all, even with Rivers as his coach, Kobe is too competitive to bow to any company line and tank.  He has no history of sitting out with a bogus injury no matter who his management is.  Kobe would have played the remaining games after the Orlando game last year and would not have stood by and watch Gomes, West, and Al sit out with bogus injuries. 


  I wasn't even including the games after Orlando that Paul missed. I was talking about the way they played when he was out with the stress fracture. If Kobe was on the team instead of Pierce and had the same mid-season injury Paul had then there's no way Kobe leads the team to the playoffs.