Mark Kriegel's editorial on the Foam Finger Game.

[nickagneta]

Read this on Foxsports.com:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/Kriegel-Cavs-Lakers-column-122509

Actually, that depends on your perspective. Don’t let the afternoon’s ignominious conclusion fool you. In deconstructing the Lakers, 102-87, the Cleveland Cavaliers provided a great service for fans of professional basketball. The Lakers remain the game’s best and most talented team. But with Christmas Day now in evidence, they can be beat. What’s more, they can be beat down. That should be a source of solace through the dog days of February and March. If nothing else, the Cavs have preserved some suspense.

Now, I don't know where Mark Kriegel has been the last three years but apparently he hasn't been following the NBA. Apparently he missed the the 2008 NBA Finals where the Boston Celtics basically beat down the Lakers' soft inside men. Apparently he missed Gasol and Odom throwing up stinkers because Brown, KG and Perk were constantly beating them up. Apparently he has also missed the constant disappearing job Bynum does whenever he goes up against tough physical defenders throughout his career.

Mark, you seem like a nice guy but the Cavs didn't expose ANYTHING to the world that hasn't already been exposed before. Shaq did not, as you assert, suddenly and instantly show the world that the Lakers could be pushed around and beat up. Go back and check out recent history. The Lakers are soft in the fore court and can be beat down, that is true. But that was EXPOSED, two years ago in June of 2008 by the team with the current best record in the league, the Boston Celtics.

[indeedproceed]

true that. Pretty homer oriented article.

[Drucci]

Agreed 100% with you Nick but it's funny (but mostly sad if you ask me) how people tend to think that, because the Lakers won the championship last season, they suddenly went from "soft team with no mental toughness" to "physical team with mental toughness". It's just that they did play a team in the Finals that wasn't near as physical as the Celtics were. The Lakers got outplayed by the physical Celtics two years ago. They needed 7 games to beat a Yao-less Rockets team because like the Celtics they played physical and with a great passing game and the "we, not me" mentality. In the end, talent made the difference but that's it.

But because the Lakers won against the Magic (no surprise Gasol dominated in the Finals since he was defended by Rashard Lewis, a soft power forward) and became champions, all of a sudden, they are a physical team and Kobe is a player who thinks of his players before his own points. What a joke!

But we all knew that they didn't change. They still have no bench - and a worse one than in 2008 -, and Artest is a significant downgrade compared to Ariza (Artest's defense is not that good and he is an horrible shooter, especially from 3). Gasol and Bynum don't get enough shots because Kobe takes too many of them, Fisher is a defensive liability, and they have almost no 3 point shooters (Fisher is declining and his FG% is atrocious, Kobe, for an unknown reason, struggles from three, Artest is Artest and Vujacic seems to shoot 3's like Shaq shoots free throws).

Basically, I feel that this Lakers team is not good as its record this season, like the Celtics of a year ago and our great start. They have played almost all their games at home, against poor teams, and they have lost against all good teams (Dallas at home, a beatdown in Denver, in Utah, a beatdown against Cleveland at home), lost against the Rockets, and struggled mightily against OK teams (needed OT against OKC, Milwaukee  and Houston, needed buzzer beater against Miami at home).

Can't wait for the Celtics Lakers game.

[scoop]

The Lakers aren't soft. They just lose games, like every other team.

[Dybdal]

To early to throw LA under the bus, while i do agree with you Nick that its a homer based article and the Lebron's didnt show anything to world that wasnt already known, i still see them as being stronger than their 2008 counterpart.

While i do agree about Ariza being a better player than Artest, i think he has a certain quality just like Rodman, he gets under people's skin when he's defending them and thats what he's there to do come april.

I would rather have Artest on Carmelo and Paul Pierce than Ariza

[Drucci]

To early to throw LA under the bus, while i do agree with you Nick that its a homer based article and the Lebron's didnt show anything to world that wasnt already known, i still see them as being stronger than their 2008 counterpart.

Really? How are they stronger? Kobe hasn't got any better, Fisher is terrible on defense and doesn't do much on offense (he hits clutch 3 pointers, and I agree it's important, but he is not the shooter he once was), Artest is a good defender (but not great) but is a terrible shooter, Gasol is the same than two years ago (he is still soft) and Bynum is Bynum (he needs a ton of shots to be effective and he struggles against physical centers like Shaq or Perk). Odom is back to his "I'm going to show up 1 game out of 5" routine after being consistent last year (a contract year... what a coincidence).

And their bench of 2008 which consisted in Turiaf, Farmar, Walton and Vujacic now consists of Farmar (OK offensively, mediocre defensively), Vujacic (can't hit a shot and struggles to get his spot in the rotation), Walton and Odom. Only Shannon Brown is an effective bench player. Their bench basically relies on Odom.

While i do agree about Ariza being a better player than Artest, i think he has a certain quality just like Rodman, he gets under people's skin when he's defending them and thats what he's there to do come april.

I would rather have Artest on Carmelo and Paul Pierce than Ariza

Ariza was an excellent defender on the Lakers, and he is much quicker than Artest so I'm not sure Artest is a better defender. Sure, he is heavier and more body builded but he lacks quickness and jump. Also, Ariza looks like Ray Allen when you compare his shooting touch to Artest's, and it says a lot since Ariza isn't a good shooter. At least he is an excellent slasher to the basket, unlike Artest.

Understand, I'm not saying the Laker suck. They are a very good team, the best in the West and they will have to be dealt with in order to win the championship this season. But they are not as great as people and media say they are. Their flaws are pretty obvious and I do think that even in the West they could get beat in a series (against the Spurs - assuming they will play like the team we expected after their signings of the summer and I think they will come playoff time -, the Nuggets or even the Mavs).

[Dybdal]

To early to throw LA under the bus, while i do agree with you Nick that its a homer based article and the Lebron's didnt show anything to world that wasnt already known, i still see them as being stronger than their 2008 counterpart.

Really? How are they stronger? Kobe hasn't got any better, Fisher is terrible on defense and doesn't do much on offense (he hits clutch 3 pointers, and I agree it's important, but he is not the shooter he once was), Artest is a good defender (but not great) but is a terrible shooter, Gasol is the same than two years ago (he is still soft) and Bynum is Bynum (he needs a ton of shots to be effective and he struggles against physical centers like Shaq or Perk). Odom is back to his "I'm going to show up 1 game out of 5" routine after being consistent last year (a contract year... what a coincidence).

And their bench of 2008 which consisted in Turiaf, Farmar, Walton and Vujacic now consists of Farmar (OK offensively, mediocre defensively), Vujacic (can't hit a shot and struggles to get his spot in the rotation), Walton and Odom. Only Shannon Brown is an effective bench player. Their bench basically relies on Odom.

While i do agree about Ariza being a better player than Artest, i think he has a certain quality just like Rodman, he gets under people's skin when he's defending them and thats what he's there to do come april.

I would rather have Artest on Carmelo and Paul Pierce than Ariza

Ariza was an excellent defender on the Lakers, and he is much quicker than Artest so I'm not sure Artest is a better defender. Sure, he is heavier and more body builded but he lacks quickness and jump. Also, Ariza looks like Ray Allen when you compare his shooting touch to Artest's, and it says a lot since Ariza isn't a good shooter. At least he is an excellent slasher to the basket, unlike Artest.

Understand, I'm not saying the Laker suck. They are a very good team, the best in the West and they will have to be dealt with in order to win the championship this season. But they are not as great as people and media say they are. Their flaws are pretty obvious and I do think that even in the West they could get beat in a series (against the Spurs - assuming they will play like the team we expected after their signings of the summer and I think they will come playoff time -, the Nuggets or even the Mavs).

While i agree with you on most points, i still have a gut feeling that this laker squad this year is better than their 2008 counterpart.

Growth and Swagger will do alot for any team but outside this they do have alot concerns with their bench, just as we did last year.

But regarding the offensive qualitys of Artest compared to Ariza i just see as being not really that big of a problem and i dont think they want Artest to be a major contributor in Laker Land, he is that teams Rodman.. for better or worse! its a gamble that can turn out to be golden for LA or it can turn out horribly wrong.

[twinbree]

I don't know what the author thought the Cavs exposed. This season's Lakers are averaging double digit deficits in their losses. I'm pretty sure it was obvious before yesterday they can be beat down.

[scoop]

To early to throw LA under the bus, while i do agree with you Nick that its a homer based article and the Lebron's didnt show anything to world that wasnt already known, i still see them as being stronger than their 2008 counterpart.

Really? How are they stronger? Kobe hasn't got any better, Fisher is terrible on defense and doesn't do much on offense (he hits clutch 3 pointers, and I agree it's important, but he is not the shooter he once was), Artest is a good defender (but not great) but is a terrible shooter, Gasol is the same than two years ago (he is still soft) and Bynum is Bynum (he needs a ton of shots to be effective and he struggles against physical centers like Shaq or Perk). Odom is back to his "I'm going to show up 1 game out of 5" routine after being consistent last year (a contract year... what a coincidence).

And their bench of 2008 which consisted in Turiaf, Farmar, Walton and Vujacic now consists of Farmar (OK offensively, mediocre defensively), Vujacic (can't hit a shot and struggles to get his spot in the rotation), Walton and Odom. Only Shannon Brown is an effective bench player. Their bench basically relies on Odom.

Maybe because they have a healthy Bynum now + Artest (Ariza was coming back from injury in the playoffs and barely played) and they now have an excellent player like Odom coming off the bench?

But if you think they were better with Radmanovic, Vujacic, Turiaf and Luke Walton logging big minutes...

While i do agree about Ariza being a better player than Artest, i think he has a certain quality just like Rodman, he gets under people's skin when he's defending them and thats what he's there to do come april.

I would rather have Artest on Carmelo and Paul Pierce than Ariza

Ariza was an excellent defender on the Lakers, and he is much quicker than Artest so I'm not sure Artest is a better defender. Sure, he is heavier and more body builded but he lacks quickness and jump. Also, Ariza looks like Ray Allen when you compare his shooting touch to Artest's, and it says a lot since Ariza isn't a good shooter. At least he is an excellent slasher to the basket, unlike Artest.
[/quote]

Actually I agree they should have kept Ariza over Artest, but if you think that Ariza is a better shooter or slasher than Artest, I have no idea what to say. Ariza is a better off-the-ball cutter, but that's all.  

[nickagneta]

I've read that this is a homer article but where is Kriegel from? I thought he was a national columnist who got his roots working in NY. He lives in LA now but how exactly is this a homer article?

[Fafnir]

Actually I agree they should have kept Ariza over Artest, but if you think that Ariza is a better shooter or slasher than Artest, I have no idea what to say. Ariza is a better off-the-ball cutter, but that's all.  

Ariza is a better shooter than Artest. Though Artest is slightly better from deep, Ariza has a better eFG%.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=gJdWL

I think Ariza was a better fit for the Lakers offense, he's a lower usage guy who is great off the ball. Artest is definitely a guy who will take some bad shots and likes to have the ball in his hands.

Still very equivalent players, I don't think the Lakers lost all that much. That is assuming Artest stays away from the crazy.

[Fafnir]

Actually I agree they should have kept Ariza over Artest, but if you think that Ariza is a better shooter or slasher than Artest, I have no idea what to say. Ariza is a better off-the-ball cutter, but that's all.  

Ariza is a better shooter than Artest. Though Artest is slightly better from deep, Ariza has a better eFG%.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=gJdWL

I think Ariza was a better fit for the Lakers offense, he's a lower usage guy who is great off the ball. Artest is definitely a guy who will take some bad shots and likes to have the ball in his hands.

Still very equivalent players, I don't think the Lakers lost all that much. That is assuming Artest stays away from the crazy.

Okay I just checked 82 games jump shooting stats. Ariza and Artest had essentially the same percentages on jump shots. Ariza just has better shot selection (not much of a surprise there).