# Lakers Big 4 stats



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

When Shaq, Kobe, Payton and Malone have all started on the same court together this season the Lakers have beat the Kings, Spurs, Pacers and Twolves by a combined 83 points, beating the Spurs twice, and Pacers, Kings and Twolves once. Not much of a sample size, but there hasn't been much of a sample size since Malone missed half the season. Didn't do so hot against the Mavs at Staples once this season, but I think it's fair to say that most don't take the Mavs too seriously this year. 

It will be very, very interesting to see how the Lakers play against the Kings at Arco and the Spurs at Staples in the next 2 weeks.


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> It will be very, very interesting to see how the Lakers play against the Kings at Arco--*Loss*--and the Spurs at Staples--*win*--in the next 2 weeks.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Lakers are playing *great* right now, and should soon pass Sacremento for best record in the league. There's really no doubt in my mind now that the Lakers will win the championship if everyone's healthy. That was a dominating performence yesterday against the T'Wolves. What's impressing me the most is their defense. T'Wolve, 73 Points? That's impressive. Kobe's playing like the best player in the league right now, Shaq is letting Kobe do his thing, and is focusing more of his attention on defense and rebounding, and still putting up about 20 points a night. Everything's working for the Lakers right now, Malone and Payton are playing their roles well, distributing the ball, getting easy transition baskets. This team will be very tough to beat in the playoffs, and I don't see it happening.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rukahS capuT</b>!
> Lakers are playing *great* right now, and should soon pass Sacremento for best record in the league. There's really no doubt in my mind now that the Lakers will win the championship if everyone's healthy. That was a dominating performence yesterday against the T'Wolves. What's impressing me the most is their defense. T'Wolve, 73 Points? That's impressive. Kobe's playing like the best player in the league right now, Shaq is letting Kobe do his thing, and is focusing more of his attention on defense and rebounding, and still putting up about 20 points a night. Everything's working for the Lakers right now, Malone and Payton are playing their roles well, distributing the ball, getting easy transition baskets. This team will be very tough to beat in the playoffs, and I don't see it happening.


the key for them is defense and rebounding. even early in the season, they weren't dominating the boards like they have been recently. if they do that, they'll be impossible to beat. that, and stay healthy.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

Funny how two blowout wins are enough to make everyone jump on the Lakers bandwagon again. The Pistons just finished blowing out 8 teams in a row.

I realize that most of those 8 teams weren't any good, but the Kings and the Timberwolves aren't any good right now either. They are trying to integrate their newly healthy players into their rotations and failing miserably at it. I doubt either of them makes the conference finals.

String together a few more great games, then we'll talk.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> Funny how two blowout wins are enough to make everyone jump on the Lakers bandwagon again. The Pistons just finished blowing out 8 teams in a row.
> 
> I realize that most of those 8 teams weren't any good, but the Kings and the Timberwolves aren't any good right now either. They are trying to integrate their newly healthy players into their rotations and failing miserably at it. I doubt either of them makes the conference finals.
> ...


when they've been healthy, they've been great. this is just a continuation. a minor difference between them and detroit is they have 2 of the best players in the game, have 4 hall of famers, and have won 3 of the last 4 championships. there's reason to believe they're for real.

but you're right in that they need to be consistently dominant to really begin to strike fear in their opponents, and that sacto & minn aren't playing well at all right now.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> Funny how two blowout wins are enough to make everyone jump on the Lakers bandwagon again. The Pistons just finished blowing out 8 teams in a row.
> 
> I realize that most of those 8 teams weren't any good, but the Kings and the Timberwolves aren't any good right now either. They are trying to integrate their newly healthy players into their rotations and failing miserably at it. * I doubt either of them makes the conference finals.*
> ...


Based on that, I'm assuming you think the Spurs can and will beat the Lakers? Also, you say the T'Wolves and Kings are trying to integrate their newly healthy players into their rotation. Is that supposed to be an excuse for their failures, because the Lakers are doing the exact same thing right now too?


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rukahS capuT</b>!
> Lakers are playing *great* right now, and should soon pass Sacremento for best record in the league. There's really no doubt in my mind now that the Lakers will win the championship if everyone's healthy. That was a dominating performence yesterday against the T'Wolves. What's impressing me the most is their defense. T'Wolve, 73 Points? That's impressive. Kobe's playing like the best player in the league right now, Shaq is letting Kobe do his thing, and is focusing more of his attention on defense and rebounding, and still putting up about 20 points a night. Everything's working for the Lakers right now, Malone and Payton are playing their roles well, distributing the ball, getting easy transition baskets. <b>This team will be very tough to beat in the playoffs, and I don't see it happening. </b>



I said that they would win it all when Payton & Malone signed. Who could beat a team with 4 HOF'ers? 

This season is history as far as the title of "champion" is concerned, but I have been enjoying the season anyway - a great group of rookies can take what would have been a nothing season and make it exciting.


----------



## 2cent (Apr 20, 2003)

Ill leave myself open to derision and scorn and say the Lakers will be lucky to make the conference finals.With the age of some of there key players I think a couple of 6-7 game series might be too much for them.

Going by standings at the moment they will play the Rockets in the first round then probably T'wolves then if theyre still in it they will play either kings or spurs so they have probably the hardest draw out of the contending teams. 

I know theyve won there last seven but they played Magic,Bulls,Clips twice and 2 teams struggling with chemistry at the moment so I think theyre forms a bit flattering.



P.S. If Im right I will definately be following the current trend and resurecting this thread to admire my insightfulness and genius.


P.P.S.If Im wrong i will deny any responsibility for the statements made in this post due to intoxifiaction.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> I realize that most of those 8 teams weren't any good, but the Kings and the Timberwolves aren't any good right now either. They are trying to integrate their newly healthy players into their rotations and failing miserably at it. I doubt either of them makes the conference finals.
> 
> String together a few more great games, then we'll talk.


I'll keep talking for now. Judging by your sig, it's obvious where you stand on this issue. Regardless, since you don't seem to think the Kings or Wolves have a chance in the West, who do you think will challenge the Lakers? The Spurs? That's possible. After all, they did beat the Lakers last year. Of ocurse, the Lakers substantially improved in the offseason while the Spurs did not. However, I'll give the Spurs some respect because they've acutally been "there" and done "it" before. Who else? Surely, you don't think the Mavs have a chance, do you?


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> Funny how two blowout wins are enough to make everyone jump on the Lakers bandwagon again. The Pistons just finished blowing out 8 teams in a row.
> 
> I realize that most of those 8 teams weren't any good, but the Kings and the Timberwolves aren't any good right now either. They are trying to integrate their newly healthy players into their rotations and failing miserably at it. I doubt either of them makes the conference finals.
> ...


i hate to break it to you, but no team from the east stands a chance.


----------



## Basketball Fan (Sep 12, 2003)

I'd like to see how a gelled Spurs team does next week against the Lakers. But realistically, I don't see any series against the Lakers going more than 4 or 5 games.


They're doing everything. They're scoring, passing, defending, rebounding, running the floor, forcing turnovers, shutting down who they want...Next week if the Spurs don't have the answers, I don't see who will.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> 
> 
> i hate to break it to you, but no team from the east stands a chance.


Look at the Pacers record against the West and the Pistons new and improved team before you say that. I think both Detroit and Indiana can compete with the West in the Finals this year. The Pacers are 20-8 against the West this season, with victories over Denver(2), Seattle(2), L.A. Clippers(2), Minnesota, Phoenix(2), Houston, Memphis, Dallas(2), San Antonio, L.A. Lakers, Utah(2), Golden State(2), Portland. There only losses against the West are against Sacremento(Twice, Once by 3 Points, once by 2 points without Artest), Memphis(By 4 Points), Houston(By 4 Points), San Antonio(By 1 Point in OT), Minnesota, L.A. Lakers, and Portland(By 2 Points in OT). If you don't think the East don't have a chance at all in the finals, you haven't watched the Pacers all season, or the Pistons since they got Rasheed Wallace.


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> Funny how two blowout wins are enough to make everyone jump on the Lakers bandwagon again. The Pistons just finished blowing out 8 teams in a row.


Pistons blowout 8 teams, not Lakers. See the difference. 

:grinning:


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> Funny how two blowout wins are enough to make everyone jump on the Lakers bandwagon again. The Pistons just finished blowing out 8 teams in a row.
> 
> I realize that most of those 8 teams weren't any good, but the Kings and the Timberwolves aren't any good right now either. They are trying to integrate their newly healthy players into their rotations and failing miserably at it. I doubt either of them makes the conference finals.
> ...


Seriously... They hadnt won a game against a good team since December 4, now they beat 2 teams and the wagon is full again... And i live in the town on the banwaggoners (LA) its awful...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> Funny how two blowout wins are enough to make everyone jump on the Lakers bandwagon again. The Pistons just finished blowing out 8 teams in a row.


You may need to brush up on the reading comprehension. Lakers have blown out 4 elite teams this season when they've had their full squad. 

I love the Pistons, I think they'll make it to the Finals this season. But unfortunately your above statement really doesn't have much to do with the conversation. 



> I realize that most of those 8 teams weren't any good, but the Kings and the Timberwolves aren't any good right now either. They are trying to integrate their newly healthy players into their rotations and failing miserably at it. I doubt either of them makes the conference finals.


 

How have the Lakers played with Shaq, Kobe, Malone, and Payton the 5 or so games prior to this weeks' blowout wins against the Kings and Twolves? Yeah, the Lakers have been barely beating the Clippers and Magic. But guess what, they stepped up to the challenge and badly beat two of the best teams in the league. 



> String together a few more great games, then we'll talk.


Not that it'll matter, because to you the title is a lock for the Pacers. :laugh:


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> Seriously... They hadnt won a game against a good team since December 4, now they beat 2 teams and the wagon is full again... And i live in the town on the banwaggoners (LA) its awful...


You live in LA?  Then how the hell are you a Kings fan? Were you honestly a Kings fan during the Mitch Richmond area? Or did you become a fan when they took LA 7 games? 

Are you one of those anti-LA people, just because you're from LA and everybody else likes the Lakers? It really weirds me out how we have so many Kings fans in L.A. A couple years ago when they weren't winning at all, nobody in this city gave a damn about the team. Now all of a sudden they have so many fans, and I see CWebb and Bibby jerseys all around the city. 

Kings fans in LA always intrigued me, because I believe most of them are just temporary fans. Are you just going against whats common, or have you seriously liked the Kings since theyve been losing?


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

It was a good beating. It was close to "OMG we can't beat them." but not "OMG, we've played our best and we can't beat them." It was a combination of terrible Wolves play and very good Lakers play, but not totally impeccable. The Wolves did lose to DENVER, just not as badly.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>HallOfFamer</b>!
> 
> 
> You live in LA?  Then how the hell are you a Kings fan? Were you honestly a Kings fan during the Mitch Richmond area? Or did you become a fan when they took LA 7 games?
> ...


that's not as bad as being BOTH a kings fan and a lakers fan.

yes, i actually know a couple of people like that.

frightening, isn't it?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I was only able to catch a little bit of the Kings game, but I saw most of the Twolves game and its not like the Lakers were dominating. The Twolves were missing shots they'd normally make, or atleast would have two months ago. Its obvious the Kings and Twolves are both struggling right now. I think the Lakers timing on playing the contenders has been impecable this season, they played 3 games against the Spurs before December 4th and that was the first month of the season. Spurs werent really rolling yet and Lakers were trying to prove a point by having a good start. Now they play Twolves and Kings in their biggest slump of the season. 

Lakers do look good though. Shaq lately has been showing everyone why its still his team, hes keeping offenses to one shot by keeping the boards clean. His touch seems to be a lot better than it was earlier in the season or last season, you can just see his dominance on the floor. Malones passing is probably his most valuable tool, earlier in the season he looked lost in the triangle but now hes got it. 

Anyways, Kings and Twolves are in dangerous territory. Kings are only doing more to cement themselves as perrenial division champions that fold late in the season. Twolves may be looking at _another_ first round exit if they're not careful. The season is a marathon not a sprint fellas, you didnt know? Get it together.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rukahS capuT</b>!
> 
> 
> Look at the Pacers record against the West and the Pistons new and improved team before you say that. I think both Detroit and Indiana can compete with the West in the Finals this year. The Pacers are 20-8 against the West this season, with victories over Denver(2), Seattle(2), L.A. Clippers(2), Minnesota, Phoenix(2), Houston, Memphis, Dallas(2), San Antonio, L.A. Lakers, Utah(2), Golden State(2), Portland. There only losses against the West are against Sacremento(Twice, Once by 3 Points, once by 2 points without Artest), Memphis(By 4 Points), Houston(By 4 Points), San Antonio(By 1 Point in OT), Minnesota, L.A. Lakers, and Portland(By 2 Points in OT). If you don't think the East don't have a chance at all in the finals, you haven't watched the Pacers all season, or the Pistons since they got Rasheed Wallace.


since when is the regular season the determining factor in how well a team does in the playoffs?

the pistons have a great D, but their offense is still rather mundane, even with the addition of rasheed.

i don't even see them making the finals. they don't have a true big man who can work both sides of the court like the pacers do. a rasheed wallace/big ben combo can only be so effective.

should be lakers-pacers in the finals, lakers in 5 or 6.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> 
> 
> that's not as bad as being BOTH a kings fan and a lakers fan.
> ...


yes, because we all know what teams you like have incredible bearings on your personality.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HallOfFamer</b>!
> 
> 
> You live in LA?  Then how the hell are you a Kings fan? Were you honestly a Kings fan during the Mitch Richmond area? Or did you become a fan when they took LA 7 games?
> ...


I wasnt a basketball fan until that Kings Lakers series, however i was a fan of J Williams but i wasnt that big of a bball fan, after the series i was hooked on basketball and the Kings... Ive always hated the Lakers... Cuz i hate banwaggoners and thats what this whole freaking town is... They were all on the Angels nuts when they won the World Series (where the rally monkeys now?) Then they were all on the Ducks go JIGGY!!!! (Now no one even shows up) They all are not fans of the Clippers, no Lakers flags when the Lakers werent winning before Phil came, Dodgers, everyone trashes the Dodgers until they start winning, then its GAGNE!!!! WE LOVE YOU!!! Then the Dodgers start to suck and its "O **** the Dodgers"... I hate it... Im sick of banwaggoners...


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> 
> 
> yes, because we all know what teams you like have incredible bearings on your personality.


Whats with all the personal attacks  I hate personal attacks, it ruins the thread, i can think of a few people that dont usually post relevant replies just idiotic statements... Stick to saying nice or relevant statements...


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I don't know where this thread is going, but I'll try to steer it straight:

The Lakers, with the big 4 are probably the best team in the entire league. They were rolling before Malone's injury, and during the scant few games they've played together since, they've easily beaten the top two current teams in the west. The Lakers, last year, after Shaq's comeback were a wrecking ball until they were beaten by the Spurs. And that was with Shaq and Kobe, without a Power Forward and Point Guard. 

It was always noted the past few years that if the Lakers had a PF to take some heat off shaq, or a PG to distribute and take heat off Kobe, that the Lakers would be *much* better. They got both, and two hall-of-famers at that. Going into the playoffs, even in the West where most top teams are improved, I don't see any team beating this Lakers team 4 times out of 7. This team is just too experienced, too complete not to win. They can win ugly, grinding it out by tossing it in to Shaq, or play the fast paced, up and down style that's become the Western conference. As good as the Western Conference is, outside of the Spurs big men, I still don't see a sufficient answer for Shaq. And if there is one, this time, they have 3 more very different problems to deal with.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> 
> 
> yes, because we all know what teams you like have incredible bearings on your personality.


Do I need to remind you of this?



> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> 
> 
> Baiting is not allowed, please read the guidelines before you post. If you do it again, you will be suspended. Thanks.


you got warned once, and you did it again.:uhoh: :uhoh:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85933&forumid=12


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

SacKings384, yes I know exactly what you mean. I hate the Ducks/Angels, Ive always been more of a LA Kings/Dodgers fan. I understand your reasoning now I hate thundersticks with a passion and those damn Laker flags make me mad as well. I didnt notice too many when they lost to the Spurs though. Thats the thinga bout winning teams, they always get bandwagon fans no matter what. Weve just seen it rise in LA lately since the pro sports teams have been winning.


Alright guys, sorry about going off topic, I just had to address jtx with his baiting issues and SacKings384 regarding the bandwagon comment, I promise I wont do it again.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Thanks HOF, *jtx* has been trolling at the speed of light.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

I have no problem with people showing support for a winning team, its just that when they arent winning, all the fans are gone... Thats crap... And back to the topic, its gonna be weird to see if Phil stops the fast break again, if youve noticed the game against the Kings Shaq didnt do much offensively, i think when playoff time comes that will change...


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> 
> 
> yes, because we all know what teams you like have incredible bearings on your personality.


realizing you're still in high school, i'll shrug that off.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HallOfFamer</b>!
> 
> 
> You live in LA?  Then how the hell are you a Kings fan? Were you honestly a Kings fan during the Mitch Richmond area? Or did you become a fan when they took LA 7 games?
> ...


In no way am I against the Lakers, in fact, I think no team will be able to stop the Lakers from winning it all. And I hope they do, because I wan't Payton (and Karl) to get a ring. But as far as fans go, I think you need to look at your own fans (not you, yourself). It always seems to me that a lot of people in L.A. go to Laker games just because it's the thing to do. It's like it's the glamorous thing to do. I question their actual loyalty to the team. Most laker fans on this board, however, are very knowledgable. All I'm saying is, that every fanbase has their bad apples, (I know this because I'm a Bulls fan). So it's not right to hypocrisize other teams fans.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> It always seems to me that a lot of people in L.A. go to Laker games just because it's the thing to do. It's like it's the glamorous thing to do. I question their actual loyalty to the team. Most laker fans on this board, however, are very knowledgable. All I'm saying is, that every fanbase has their bad apples, (I know this because I'm a Bulls fan). So it's not right to hypocrisize other teams fans.


While this definitely applies to Lakers fans, it's definitely not all Laker fans, as you know. I've seen plenty of bangwagon fans who jumped from the Lakers to the Angels to the Spurs, etc. etc., it just didn't matter to them. However, that happens with ALL winning teams. Even a classy team like the Spurs has bangwagon fans. There just aren’t as many Spurs bangwagon fans as there are Lakers bangwagon fans because the Lakers have had a much more rich history of winning in the last 20 years. 

Plus, people love to hate winning teams. Bulls were despised too. Who knows exactly why, I don’t see how anyone could not at least appreciate and watch with joy how great the 90’s Bulls dynasty was. It pained me that the Lakers never won a title that decade, but it was damn fun watching the Bulls. Jordan was the most exciting player in the game those years and now Kobe is (to me) today.


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>dre1218us</b>!
> I don't know where this thread is going, but I'll try to steer it straight:
> 
> The Lakers, with the big 4 are probably the best team in the entire league. They were rolling before Malone's injury, and during the scant few games they've played together since, they've easily beaten the top two current teams in the west. The Lakers, last year, after Shaq's comeback were a wrecking ball until they were beaten by the Spurs. And that was with Shaq and Kobe, without a Power Forward and Point Guard.
> ...


Post of the Day (March 27th, 2004)  


Yeah, yeah yeah yeah, Yeah :rock:


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> Whats with all the personal attacks  I hate personal attacks, it ruins the thread, i can think of a few people that dont usually post relevant replies just idiotic statements... Stick to saying nice or relevant statements...


Yeah you're right, just gotta ignore the stupid comments that's all. 

As for the Laker's big 4, coincidentially I think the Kings (barring the continuation of their slump), Wolves (same), and Pacers all have a chance to compete with fully-powered Lakers. Why? Because of the simple reason of the Laker's bench, those 4 HoF can't play the whole 48. It's like Hubie Brown said, titles aren't won by your #1 or #2, they are won by your #6 or #7. At least that's my take on it.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah you're right, just gotta ignore the stupid comments that's all.
> ...


The Lakers never had a bench. The guys on the bench now used to be starters. Slava, Devean, Derek and a healthy Brian Cook is a decent bench. I don't think anyone on the bench will need to carry this team, which is what I think you're asserting.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah you're right, just gotta ignore the stupid comments that's all.
> ...


This would seem logical if the Lakers hadn't won 3 of the last 4 NBA championships with a bench no worse than the one they have now. 

If you have to rely on your 6th or 7th man to win a championship, guess what, you don't win the championship.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rukahS capuT</b>!
> 
> 
> Based on that, I'm assuming you think the Spurs can and will beat the Lakers? Also, you say the T'Wolves and Kings are trying to integrate their newly healthy players into their rotation. Is that supposed to be an excuse for their failures, because the Lakers are doing the exact same thing right now too?


There's no excuse for the failures of the Wolves and Kings. Their returning players (Kandi, Wally, Webber) are not good players in the least at this time, and the Wolves and Kings coaches are idiots for forcing them into major roles. Look how quickly the Lakers started playing well once Malone and Kobe came back, look how quickly the Pistons started playing well when they got Rasheed. If the returning players were going to work out for the Kings or Wolves, it would laready have happened.

Wolves and Kings fans can make as many excuses as they want right now, but they are playing like crap and there's no reason to believe they'll get any better. I'm just saying that Lakers fans shouldn't crow about blowing two great teams because in fact, they blew out two awful teams.

And yes, the Spurs have been my choice to win the title all season long. The other teams that have a good chance to win the title are the Lakers, the Pistons, and the Pacers. Unless something drastic happens, the Wolves, Nets, and Kings look like second round loss material to me, and the Mavs won't even MAKE it to the second round.



> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> Not that it'll matter, because to you the title is a lock for the Pacers. :laugh:


Is a :laugh: what you put in your posts when you are trying to convince people that your boring and predictable jokes are funny? Anyway, I think the Spurs will win, and the Pistons are the next most likely, followed by the Lakers and then the Pacers. Unlike you, I am not simple-minded enough to think any team is a lock. Sometimes a team steps up and beats a better team, sometimes injuries doom a team. There's a reason why they play the games.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> Is a :laugh: what you put in your posts when you are trying to convince people that your boring and predictable jokes are funny?


The only thing predictable here is your belief that the Pacers have a better shot at the title than the Twolves or Kings. It's laughable, but predictable from a “I’m being objective” pretender.



> Unlike you, I am not simple-minded enough to think any team is a lock. Sometimes a team steps up and beats a better team, sometimes injuries doom a team. There's a reason why they play the games.


I think you take the term "lock" too literally. I'm not saying there's 0% chance of the Lakers losing. Things like health, unusually bad performances from a player(s), and other factors could easily stop a team from winning a championship. But, barring injury, the Lakers are more of a lock than any other team in the league. I don't expect you believe this, because after all, you think that betting on Gary Payton and Karl Malone to stay healthy is a poor bet. You think that blowing out the 4 best teams in the league isn't really all that impressive because those teams were in a "slump" or it was "early" in the season, when in fact it's more of a result of great Lakers defense making those teams play poorly, in addition to their current slumps. 

Really, your comments are nothing surprising whatsoever. The fact that you would even think the Pistons or Pacers have a better chance at the title than the Twolves or Kings is all that really needs to be said.

Oh, and here’s another :laugh: for you.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> And yes, the Spurs have been my choice to win the title all season long. The other teams that have a good chance to win the title are the Lakers, the Pistons, and the Pacers. Unless something drastic happens, the Wolves, Nets, and Kings look like second round loss material to me, and the Mavs won't even MAKE it to the second round.


Word. The Spurs focus is different from the other western powerhouses. In a 7 game series between the Kings and Lakers, or Kings and Twolves, it would most likely be an offensive series and whoevers offense is hitting will most likely win the series. Neither defense would really make a strong effort to stop the other teams offense, they would just try to outscore the other. Spurs can go in and knock an offensive team off balance and make it a low scoring game which favors them. For the Spurs, its all about making the other team play their game, and they are very good at it. That alone gives them a great chance to repeat.


----------



## Duece Duece (Mar 28, 2003)

Home Court Advantage is the Key. I don't see the Spurs beating a healthy Lakers team without HCA.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Duece Duece</b>!
> Home Court Advantage is the Key. I don't see the Spurs beating a healthy Lakers team without HCA.


They did last year, beat the Lakers in six, basically removing home court advantage...


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah you're right, just gotta ignore the stupid comments that's all.
> ...


If that was true, your boys, the Kings would be going for their 4th straight championship this year. Oh wait, they haven't even made the Finals in the span. Oops, there goes that theory!


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rukahS capuT</b>!
> 
> 
> If that was true, your boys, the Kings would be going for their 4th straight championship this year. Oh wait, they haven't even made the Finals in the span. Oops, there goes that theory!


Word. I hate it when people harp on the Lakers' bench. It doesn't make much of a difference for us. We've won 3 NBA championships with a relatively weak bench. It's not like we lost last year because of a weak bench. The team, in general, was not playing well. Our starters gave us nothing. Our bench gave us nothing. Hell, even Shaq and Kobe had a subpar playoff series. That doesn't usually happen. However, I think we've protected ourselves quite well if that scenario were to happen again. Compared to last year, our starting lineup is superior this year. Our bench, while not the deepest in the league, is still better than it was last year. I think that Shaq and Kobe are peaking at the right time as well. This team is far more imposing than last year's team in my opinion. The only way we lose a series is if our "big four" don't play well. I don't think that Slava Medvedenko or Kareem Rush is going to be the difference in any series.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> Word. I hate it when people harp on the Lakers' bench....... The only way we lose a series is if our "big four" don't play well. I don't think that Slava Medvedenko or Kareem Rush is going to be the difference in any series.


That may be true, but Robert Horry sure made a "difference" in a playoff series against the Kings, I believe.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> 
> 
> That may be true, but Robert Horry sure made a "difference" in a playoff series against the Kings, I believe.


of course, horry was a starter then.

now, brian shaw made some big shots in a playoff series against the blazers, i believe.

contributions from reserves is certainly important. but it's the big guns who tend to put them in positions to succeed. but again, a boost from those guys can go a long way. just look at the game against the kings the other day - medvedenko hits shots - lakers pull away - he could just as easily miss those shots (he often does), and the games a different game. the bulls often got contributions from guys who they didn't necessarily depend on. again, it's the main guys who matter most, but having other guys who can at least do SOMETHING positive out there doesn't hurt.

nothing groundbreaking in what i'm saying here, i realize.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> of course, horry was a starter then.
> ...


I agree. It helps to have contributions from everyone but the Lakers don't need the 7th, 8th, and 9th players on the team to contribute as much as most teams do. That's because most teams don't have 4 HOFs in the starting lineup. A strong bench was instrumental in the Bulls three-peat, as you mentioned. I acutally believe that the Laker's bench has been underrated over the years. Guys like Horry (when he was a backup), Shaw, and George have made some solid contributions during the Lakers' three-peat. That being said, I think this bench is just as strong as any of those benches, if not stronger. Fisher is now on the bench. Rush and Russell give the Lakers more perimeter options. Medvedenko, Cook, and Walton give the Lakers some big options. George gives them some athleticism off the bench. This might actually be the best bench that LA has ever had. Once you factor in the starting lineup, this is probably the best team that LA has ever had during the Phil Jackson-era. My point: This isn't the same team that lost to SA in six games last year.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree. It helps to have contributions from everyone but the Lakers don't need the 7th, 8th, and 9th players on the team to contribute as much as most teams do. That's because most teams don't have 4 HOFs in the starting lineup. A strong bench was instrumental in the Bulls three-peat, as you mentioned. I acutally believe that the Laker's bench has been underrated over the years. Guys like Horry (when he was a backup), Shaw, and George have made some solid contributions during the Lakers' three-peat. That being said, I think this bench is just as strong as any of those benches, if not stronger. Fisher is now on the bench. Rush and Russell give the Lakers more perimeter options. Medvedenko, Cook, and Walton give the Lakers some big options. George gives them some athleticism off the bench. This might actually be the best bench that LA has ever had. Once you factor in the starting lineup, this is probably the best team that LA has ever had during the Phil Jackson-era. My point: This isn't the same team that lost to SA in six games last year.


You say 4 HOF's as if they still play at Hall Of Fame level...


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> You say 4 HOF's as if they still play at Hall Of Fame level...


Obviously, Karl Malone and Gary Payton are not what they were several years ago. They're still very good players, though. Payton is still one of the ten best PGs in the league. Keep in mind that Derek Fisher was our starting PG last year. Malone is still a good player at PF. Keep in mind that our last 3 starting PFs have been AC Green, Horace Grant, and Robert Horry. When you add that to what we already have, you have one hell of a starting lineup. As much as everyone likes to talk about Shaq's "demise" he's still one of the 3 best players in the game. Even though KG and Duncan may be better than him, he's going to cause more matchup problems than they are. Kobe has been playing like the best player in the league after the break. He's back to being regarded as a top 3-4 player in the league again. Bottom line: This starting lineup is loaded no matter how you slice it.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> Obviously, Karl Malone and Gary Payton are not what they were several years ago. They're still very good players, though. Payton is still one of the ten best PGs in the league. Keep in mind that Derek Fisher was our starting PG last year. Malone is still a good player at PF. Keep in mind that our last 3 starting PFs have been AC Green, Horace Grant, and Robert Horry. When you add that to what we already have, you have one hell of a starting lineup. As much as everyone likes to talk about Shaq's "demise" he's still one of the 3 best players in the game. Even though KG and Duncan may be better than him, he's going to cause more matchup problems than they are. Kobe has been playing like the best player in the league after the break. He's back to being regarded as a top 3-4 player in the league again. <u>Bottom line: This starting lineup is loaded no matter how you slice it. </u>


:yes: AND - Luke and Cook are excellent role players and they're rooks!


----------



## chapi (Apr 4, 2003)

right now karl malone isn't even on the level of kenny thomas :/
Payton is good but not great.
Lakers are great but not the power team that anybody has to fear. they beatable...


----------



## Basketball Fan (Sep 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>chapi</b>!
> right now karl malone isn't even on the level of kenny thomas :/


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Id say Karl Malone this season is equal to id say closest is Jamal Magloire in terms of what he brings to the table... Actually maybe a little lower than Magloire


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> Id say Karl Malone this season is equal to id say closest is Jamal Magloire in terms of what he brings to the table... Actually maybe a little lower than Magloire


Is Jamal Magloire better than AC Green or Horace Grant? If so, then the 04' Lakers are better at PF then the 99-02 Lakers were.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>chapi</b>!
> right now karl malone isn't even on the level of kenny thomas :/
> Payton is good but not great.
> Lakers are great but not the power team that anybody has to fear. they beatable...


Statistically, Karl Malone isn't a great player anymore. Of course, you have to keep in mind that he's the fourth option on one of the best teams in the league. He may be similar to Kenny Thomas statistically but they are in completely different situations. Last year Karl scored 20 ppg for 17th consecutive season. His drop in production has more to do with the team he's playing on than a decline in skill. Plus, stats don't take into account all of the little things that he does. His skills are perfectly suited to fit the Lakers' squad. He can hit the outside jumper. He's an excellent passer. He can execute the pick and roll. He's still a very good rebounder. He can defend the pick and roll. He runs the floor well. Honestly, I'd rather have a player that does all of these things than a guy who will get you 20 and 10 a night but can't do the little things. The Lakers already have players that can put points on the board. 

Payton is not a great player anymore. Offensively, he's still a force to be reckoned with. However, he has slipped defensively. Quick PGs seem to be giving Payton alot of trouble defensively. Luckily, Kobe Bryant is quick enough to defend most PGs and Payton is big enough to defend most SGs. The only player on a championship contender that might give both players trouble is Tony Parker. Other than that, Kobe and Payton should be able to defend most of the Western Conference PGs reasonably well. However, it's Payton's offense that seperates him from most PGs. As much as he's declined on defense, he's still a tremendous offensive player. He's got the size to post up most PGs. He's still great at pushing the ball up the court. He's still a high % shooter. He can initiate the offense out of the half-court set. He's a terrific passer. He may not be the best PG in the league anymore but you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of guys better than him. Statistically, he's still one of the 7-8 best PGs in the game. Luckily, most of the elite ones play in the Eastern Conference. Payton shouldn't be outclassed on most nights in the West.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>chapi</b>!
> right now karl malone isn't even on the level of kenny thomas :/





> Id say Karl Malone this season is equal to id say closest is Jamal Magloire in terms of what he brings to the table... Actually maybe a little lower than Magloire


Last time I checked, Kenny Thomas and Jamaal Magloire both average double-doubles and Magloire was an All-Star. Say what you want about that, both those are the cold hard facts. I don't really see him being on those two guys level as a knock on Malone at all. Factor in that Malone is a much better passer than both Thomas and Magloire, I don't see that as a very good arguement against the Lakers or Malone.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rukahS capuT</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maglorie did not deserve to be an All Star... And if you can see, i said maybe a little bit worse...


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>chapi</b>!
> right now karl malone isn't even on the level of kenny thomas :/
> Payton is good but not great.
> Lakers are great but not the power team that anybody has to fear. they beatable...


If they are healthy, I dont see anyone beating them. Shaq and Kobe alone are almost enought to carry that team to a title. You have to know that both Gary and Malone are both gonna do whatever it takes to get a ring and make taking a huge paycut worthwhile.

If they are completely healthy, I could see them just plain steamrolling over everyone through the playoffs like they did a few years back.

They wont admit it, but I think teams like Minnesota, Sacramento, and Dallas are completely intimidated by the Lakers. Maybe San Antonio a little less so.

And this is from a completely non-Laker fan.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> Maglorie did not deserve to be an All Star... And if you can see, i said maybe a little bit worse...


And if you can see, I said "say what you want about it, those are the cold hard facts", and they are. Magloire was an All-Star, he and Thomas both average double-doubles, period. A little bit worse than an All-Star is still good.


----------



## Duece Duece (Mar 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> They did last year, beat the Lakers in six, basically removing home court advantage...






Nah, The Spurs had Home Court Advantage


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Duece Duece</b>!
> 
> Nah, The Spurs had Home Court Advantage


Don't be hard on him, he thought the Kings never played the Lakers in the 2000 playoffs.


----------



## kg_mvp03-04 (Jul 24, 2003)

i think that if the lakers win in the first round they will win the championship. I don't see any team beating them Four out of 7 times but a five game series against Houston i can see them losing. I think the lakers should try to avoid the rockets and have the kings or the t'wolves deal with them. The rockets will be a dangerous team if Steve Francis and Mobley learn that it is no longer there team.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kg_mvp03-04</b>!
> i think that if the lakers win in the first round they will win the championship. I don't see any team beating them Four out of 7 times but a five game series against Houston i can see them losing. I think the lakers should try to avoid the rockets and have the kings or the t'wolves deal with them. The rockets will be a dangerous team if Steve Francis and Mobley learn that it is no longer there team.




A 5 game series has no relevance anymore....


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kg_mvp03-04</b>!
> i think that if the lakers win in the first round they will win the championship. I don't see any team beating them Four out of 7 times but a five game series against Houston i can see them losing. I think the lakers should try to avoid the rockets and have the kings or the t'wolves deal with them. The rockets will be a dangerous team if Steve Francis and Mobley learn that it is no longer there team.


the first round is 7 games now.


----------



## kg_mvp03-04 (Jul 24, 2003)

ooops in that case the lake show will win it all, i can't see any team except for maybe the rockets beating them 4 times in a seven game series.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kg_mvp03-04</b>!
> The rockets will be a dangerous team if Steve Francis and Mobley learn that it is no longer there team.


I don't see that happening anytime soon.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> Maglorie did not deserve to be an All Star... And if you can see, i said maybe a little bit worse...


gotta disagree there. I think he showed us in the All-Star game he deserved to be there.


----------

