A few reasons why I think this team could be a contender...

Re: A few reasons why I think this team could be a contender...

Postby TheOp on Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:12 pm

I havent seen anyone with a logical reason to dispute my argument I made in the original post. Instead just people saying things like stop being delusional or a meteor will hit the earth.

This forum really could use an influx of some more knowledgeable basketball people and not some of the dumbheads that post things like that.

Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: SoCAL

Re: A few reasons why I think this team could be a contender...

Postby nba2k14 on Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:36 am

revgen wrote:1) Taunting has nothing to do with IQ on the basketball court. In fact has nothing to do with basketball at all. Not only that, it's illegal in today's game and will only bring a technical to Hill and a FT for the player who is being taunted. That's not smart. I'm not sure why you're even trying to argue this.

Charge/Block is one of the most difficult calls for referees to make. Engaging in trying to draw a charge as opposed to going for the shotblock/contest doesn't make a player smarter or indicate a higher basketball IQ. If anything you're gambling that the refs won't call a block against you. Since defenders that attempt to draw charges aren't contesting the shot, a block call can often turn into an and-1 opportunity. Hill's choice to contest/block is a more conservative approach, since if he picks up the foul, he's less likely to allow the and-1. Rodman is/was more of a gambler than Hill. That's his choice. It doesn't make him a smarter player than Hill.

2) Rodman was a SF/PF in the triangle offense with Chicago. The PF in our system doesn't distribute the ball, so your whole "passing" argument falls flat. We don't play in the triangle. Rodman was a superior physical specimen, I'll give you that.

3) Hill came off the bench last season and the season before that. He only started 9 games for us total before this season. If he was "doing it with Kobe" as you claim, it certainly wasn't for long periods. Most of the time, the people on the court with him were the likes of Blake, Goudelock, and Meeks. Once again, your argument falls flat.

4) Judging by the fact that you're mostly wrong about Hill as a shotblocker, Hill's IQ, Hill's superior postgame, and Faried's so-called superior athleticism, I don't really care about what judgement you make in the future. You're wasting my time and yours.

5) No. It's not wrong. Hill's IQ is high enough to perform his role to highest level. Nobody's asking him to be Steve Nash. Ditto with Rodman during his time with the Pistons and Bulls.

You obviously love Rodman, and can't stand the idea of another player being compared to him. Fine. I don't intend to change your mind. But your arguments against Hill as a person who could potentially play a Rodman-like role on a championship team fall flat.

1. To truly appreciate Rodman's mental game, a person would have to watch a full game to understand. I'm using the taunting just as one example of his way to distract and annoy an opponent into committing foul and took the team out. When Rodman flopped, he made it looks as if the others did it even though he instigated the event.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... fight&sm=3

Opponents hate it but if you are a teammate of his , you would love it because these are dirty works that don't show up in the boxscore. It's dirty but it's smart basketball. Basketball is a game not just about putting the ball in the hoop. There are dynamics and system that you run and Rodman is very good at it.

Yes, charge/block is difficult to call but the difference is when a player should go for charge and when a player should go for block. It's all about positioning and knowing your limitation. Rodman, Fisher, Battier all are very good at it because they know their limitation. That's nonsense. either choice of going for block and charge will lead to And-1 depending on the player maneuver. There are too many cases of player going for block, ending up missing the ball, hitting the arm and the player dunks or layup, and And-1. Likewise for charge. You don't close your eyes and go for charge every time. You MUST know where your feet is set and be at the right place in your anticipation which give you better possibility of a charging call, as opposed to blocking call.

2. Nonsense. Rodman is a PF/C in the triangle. His usefulness is to rebound, inbound very quickly, run the break, finish the break, pass on the high key, and give 2nd opportunity to reset the clock on each offensive rebound. He is like Ben Wallace but just a better passer, leading to better movement in the triangle. This is not mentioning Rodman's defensive versatility allows him to switch and rotation on the Bulls is like the Miami Heats. His passing and handle is better than Hill and that is useful for any system that want to execute a play.

3. Nonsense. Hill is the same player he was with the Rockets and even in college. It is his "game". The only thing really change is in the past few game, he got more minutes but we have to wait and see if he can keep up. He plays plenty of time with Kobe because he subs in for Dwight/Pau and MDA extensive use of Kobe's minute meaning Kobe plays with all kind of lineups. The 8-10min of Kobe rest is replaced by Jodi and Hill played around 16min, which mean half of it he played with Kobe on the court.

4. Pay close attention and observe his game. Hill will contest shot regardless of the situation, leading to foul. He averages close to 4 personal foul per game in the last 5 games in which he played extended minutes.

5. Like I said, Hill's basketball IQ is well-documented in his scouting draft report and with the Rockets and Knicks. His tendency to forget the play and execute poorly is detrimental against the good team. At best, he is average. And on a contender, that, my friend, is not good enough to be a core player from a starting lineup perspective. He is a bench player, role player.

I appreciate Rodman's game because I understand the game more than you. That's all. It's nothing personal. To be compare to someone, I assume you gain at least a sizable basketball fan that will pick Hill over Rodman and I'm sorry, bud, you won't find many in the world of basketball.

Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:52 am

Re: A few reasons why I think this team could be a contender...

Postby nba2k14 on Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:58 am

Snakell Beast wrote:
nba2k14 wrote:........So all in all, this team is bad, beating an even more god awful team is nothing to brag about.

I don't think anyone on here seriously thinks "contender" meant contending for a championship, I think it meant PLAYOFF contender. BIG difference. You were even more unrealistically pessimistic than the original poster (in the event that the OP really meant that this team can compete for a ring this year) was optimistic if you think the Lakers are a god awful team.

With Kobe out, and Antoni flailing, we are 5-7...with Kobe back and (eventually) near 100% (again IF, and depending on when, that happens) we are WAY better than god awful. We are NOT a top bracket team without said meteor, but we could honestly get as high as the 6th, or even 5th, seed if Kobe gets up to full speed before the new year and everyone else just settles into roughly where they are now.

The main reason we are 5-7 (in mostly close games, even against good teams) is because we are too free flowing to the point of an identity-less chaotic mess. Kobe establishes a set style and a pecking order...a championship proven formula for how to play. We may not have a championship roster (OK, definitely not) but that doesn't mean we can't be slightly above the Grizzlies, Mavericks and Nuggets type teams if we stay healthy and get on a roll.

The west is actually going to be more open this year on the bottom half of the bracket, so I'm not going to make any excuses for the Lakers. Of course this is all predicated on Kobe actually resembling himself again within the next 10-20 games (if ever is also a possibility) but let's not ASSUME Kobe will stink, or that this team can't be consistently smart and execute. The skills are there, they just need to stay healthy and put them together.

There is a lot of reason why I believe this team won't make the playoff though, let alone a championship contender. First, they rely heavily on 3pts shot and non-existence interior defense. Second, they have no offensive structure and playing freely which contribute to abnormal stat from the role players. The only real legit win this season is against the Pistons and Pelican. The Rockets beat themselves, the Hawks are just another dumb team that almost beat the Lakers despite their horrific mistake in the 4 quarters, and the Clippers game is an anomaly. The rest are games where Lakers got beat down. Despite the hot shooting, the Lakers are 26th in ORtg, 17th DRtg, and 19th in SRS. That place them at best a mediocre team thus far. They definitely don't show any positive outlook to be in the 5-7 seat. Of course, all these are just mute points and depending on Kobe health and integration into the team, thing will change in this early season. But my bet is they won't make the playoff because the West is too stack and Top 6 is pretty much seal with Spurs, OKC, Clippers, Warriors, Rockets, Grizzlies. That mean we are competing for the last 2 seats with Portland improved 9-2, Wolves 7-5, Mavs 7-4 and Nuggets. All have personnels that are superior to the Lakers outside of Kobe.

Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:52 am

Re: A few reasons why I think this team could be a contender...

Postby khmrP on Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:23 am

TheOp wrote:You guys are forgetting though we have not had an easy schedule so far. We are 5-7 and in a few games we were really close to winning.

We currently have had the 2nd toughest schedule in the league so far. 5-7 without Kobe isnt that bad. And we somehow beat the Clippers and the Rockets without Kobe.

those close games that they did lose was because of defense with the combination of jumpshots not falling. Typlical Antoni team, when perimiter game is off they lose more often than not. SA gm up around 20 lose, Den gm was close for the most part and blew wide open within minutes. The Det game is a good example of how explosive offense can be but not consistent at all, as saying goes live by the 3 die by the 3.
User avatar

Posts: 10461
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 10:45 pm

Re: A few reasons why I think this team could be a contender...

Postby jlkr on Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:36 pm

I saw Rodman play; Hill is no Rodman. Not close. Rodman was the closest thing to a superstar for a guy who couldn't shoot or dribble.

That said, Hill could still fit on a championship team. Think Mark Landsberger, Kurt Rambis and AC Green, all starters on the Showtime teams of the 80's.

Now back to the topic of the thread: if you meant championship contender ... no. Not enough talent on the roster even with Kobe's return. This isn't a Top 5 or 6 team, heck this team isn't even on the edge of that. If you mean fringe playoffs, sure the 7th or 8th spot is doable provided the team stays healthy, that outages are limited to Nash. Kobe and Pau will command enough attention to get space for the 3pt shooters and for Hill to do his thing. If the 3pt shooters can put it in often enough, the team could have a Top 5 offense. But the defense will continue to be an issue all year long and that will yank them back into the reality of a 7th or 8th seed. Remember there are still 16 sets of back to backs remaining on the schedule... that won't help.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

--Robert Frost
User avatar

Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: your friendly neighborhood bar

Re: A few reasons why I think this team could be a contender...

Postby Juronimo on Wed Nov 20, 2013 7:31 pm

Comparing Hill to Rodman :man3:

I like Hill, he's been great for us but come on. There is absolutely no comparison. Rodman is one the best pound for pount rebounder the game has ever seen. He is also one of the best defensive players the game has ever seen. His basketball IQ is off the charts. He's in the hall of fame for a reason.

Ferguson, we hear you.
RIP Mike Brown.
User avatar

Posts: 6598
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Fist in the air on a quest for justice

Re: A few reasons why I think this team could be a contender...

Postby SpencerHarrison on Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:11 pm

If Kobe and Gasol can get into a 2 man game for the starters, teams could find themselves with a lot to handle between Meeks, Young and Henry from the bench. Plus they can run the floor and get back on defense.

I hear a lot of talk about how pretty much every team of note in the western conference has better players by position. I disagree. This Lakers crew seems smart, young and talented. Just because they aren't name brand doesn't mean they can't do big things.

Last years squad was beat up and overhyped. Regardless of why, Howard did not play well at all, and Nash was a non factor. Kobe basically had a hobbled Pau, and scrubs like Darius Morris. DARIUS MORRIS

This is absolutely a team that could make noise.

Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:41 pm

Re: A few reasons why I think this team could be a contender...

Postby West's Formula 44 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:31 pm

revgen wrote:I see Jordan Hill as a PF version of Dennis Rodman. Rodman was a core player for the Bulls and Pistons, so I don't see how Hill couldn't be a core player for a team..

What about Hill reminds you of Rodman? I like Hill. but fail to see a valid comparison. Does Jordan lead the league in rebounding? Does he have players like Isiah Thomas and Joe Dumars around to make up for his offensive shortcomings? Vinnie Johnson? Mark Aguirre?

I'm just not sure if that's a Mike D'Antoni team though. The Bulls were defensive-minded, and so were the Pistons. We're an offensive-minded team, so Hill is kind of an odd duck on this squad.

The Bulls also had Jordan and Pippen to shoulder the scoring load. They had Charles Oakley, and then, later, Horace Grant to keep power forwards in check. So the Bulls could get by with subpar centers in the middle.

Like Sister Golden Hair said in another thread, Hill is a core player on a post-D'Antoni roster. That means if we hire SVG or Hollins to replace D'Antoni, Hill would definitely fit in and be less odd than he is now.

We'd need a couple of superstars to build around first.
Winners never quit and quitters never win.

Vince Lombardi
User avatar
West's Formula 44

Posts: 413
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:06 pm


Return to Lakers Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.