Insider Article on Parity

[Guest]

NBA rivalries: Is there life after

the Celtics-Lakers?

By Terry Brown

Tuesday, October 15 Updated 10:29 AM EST

Sacramento sucks.

Los Angeles point guard Derek Fisher has hit more big shots than Mike Bibby ever has at less than half the price. Maybe Vlade can tell the rest of them how it feels to play in the finals. After all, he did it with the Lakers. And the next time Peja Stojakovic pulls up for a game-losing air ball, remind him that this isn't the World Championships and there are more than 13 people in the stands waiting to heckle him. Chris Webber . . . pants on fire.

That's right, I said it. The Queens suck.

What'cha gonna do about it?

"There is no question that rivalries help the league," says a former NBA owner. "The problem, though, is that when teams fail to play well, interest is lost and they disappear."

You remember the Lakers versus the Celtics or the Celtics versus the Sixers and vice versa. Or you remember remembering someone telling you about Russell and Chamberlain, West and Cousy, Magic and Bird, Abdul-Jabbar, Dr. J and so on.

When the Boston Celtics won 10 NBA titles in 11 years beginning in 1959, they played the Los Angeles Lakers in the finals six times. And while the Lakers never defeated the Celtics for the crown in that span, they pushed the Celtics to seven games in three of those matchups. In all, the losing team still won 14 games, only four shy of a maximum 18.

Compare that to the current Laker run of three NBA championships where the losing team has won three of a possible nine.

In 1980, the Magic Johnson-led Lakers won the title over the Philadelphia Sixers, who had beaten the Larry Bird-led Celtics in the Eastern Conference Finals. The Lakers would go on to win five titles in the decade and make eight finals appearances. The Celtics would win three titles and make five finals appearances.

Compare that to the last three seasons in which the Lakers not only defeated three different finals opponents in the Pacers, Sixers and Nets, but also defeated three different Western Conference Finals opponents in the Blazers, Spurs and Kings.

"Super teams are good," says the former owner. "Everyone may rip on the Yankees but at the same time, everyone watches, whether it's to see them win or to see them lose. When we have dominant teams, the league gets love or hate attention. This natural controversy draws crowds to the arenas and television sets."

In 1987, the Detroit Pistons lost to the Celtics in a heartbreaking seven-game series for the Eastern Conference title. The following year, the Pistons lost an equally heartbreaking seven-game series to the Lakers for the title. But the year after that, the Pistons broke through and won the next two championships and still made it to one more Eastern Conference Finals.

In 1988, the Chicago Bulls lost to the Pistons in the conference semifinals, 4-1. The following season, they lost to the Pistons in the conference finals, 4-2. The year after that, the Bulls lost to the Pistons again in the conference finals, 4-3. But the very next year, in 1991, the Bulls defeated the Pistons, 4-0, in the conference finals and went on to beat the Lakers for the franchise's first NBA title in what would become six in eight seasons.

Compare that to the Portland Trailblazers, who pushed the Lakers to seven games in the 2000 Western Conference Finals after winning 59 regular-season games. The next season, they won only 50 games and were eliminated in the first round by the Lakers, 3-0. The year after that, they won 49 games and were again eliminated in the first round by the Lakers, 3-0.

The Pacers won the Eastern Conference title in 2000 after winning 56 regular-season games. The next year, they won only 41 games and were eliminated in the first round. The following season, they made the playoffs by a single game before being eliminated in the first round again.

The Sixers won the Eastern Conference title in 2001 after winning 56 regular-season games. The next year, they won only 43 and were eliminated in the first round.

They come, they go and we are left flipping through almanacs to remember their names rather than repeating them on the jerseys we buy for our kids and save until they have kids of their own.

"Great players make great teams," says the former owner. "But it's great teams who make superstars. This is a personality-driven business and, in the end, we're still talking about people. Jason Williams once had the best selling jersey on the market. He helped put Sacramento on the map."

But after surprising the NBA world with serendipitous success, his Kings failed to win ultimately. He was traded to the Grizzlies and now you use that purple and black mesh to check the oil on your car.

"But watch and see if Jerry West turns that franchise around and that player into something special . . ."

Grizzlies to the Eastern Conference, then the first round, next year the second, who knows . . . maybe the conference finals by the third and a matchup with the eight-time defending Lakers in the NBA Finals by the fourth. And an end to the Laker reign by the fifth year by the very man who created it in 1999 after losing to the Celtics 30 years before as a Laker, himself.

West would go on to win an NBA title in 1972, the Lakers sixth in a total of 14 and counting. The Celtics have 16. In 56 years of NBA history, two teams alone have won 30 titles, formed one of the greatest rivalries in all of sport and pushed basketball to the furthest reaches of pocketbook and planet.

How good are these new Lakers? Who introduces Michael Jordan in Springfield? Who even played for the 1975 Warriors or 1977 Blazers or 1978 Bullets or 1979 Sonics?

"Parity more often than not means mediocrity," says the former owner. "We need dominant teams to grab the attention."

Spurs, Mavericks, Nets, Hornets, Argentina National Team, Harlem Globetrotters, Monstars. There is more at stake here than cowbells and civic pride. The Kings can either become that dominant team or give up their lunch money like the rest of the league and go to the end of the line.

[Diesel]

They just happen to be the best team in a mediocre time. NOT close to being a great team.

Every Bulls team was better than this Laker team. And the truth of the matter is that it was not about Jordan (all the time). What made the Bulls so great was their defense. The Lakers have defense. IN Game 7 of the series in the second half of the game, somebody will make a few defensive stops... However, they don't have command of their defense. Those Championship Bulls had that. When they wanted to stop a team, they could. That's what the difference is between a great team and a team that wins.

The same goes for the Bad Boys. When they were on their game defensively, teams feared the bad boys. Specially Pippen. Because he knew that he would get pressed and hounded every minute of the game. So much so that he had the legendary Migrane when the Pistons came to town.

Here's my guess about recent history..

Lakers vs. Bulls Dynasty. = Bulls Dynasty wins series 4-2.

I equate it to the Bulls playing against Portland. Portland had Drexler, Williams, Porter, Duckworth, and were well coached.

Lakers vs. Pistons. Pistons win 4-3. That piston team would have worn down Shaq and Co. Too much depth.

Lakers vs. San Antonio. Well, San Antonio beat that Laker team 4-0. I suspect with their only difference (Phil) thy would still lose to the healthy twin towers and Healthy Sean Elliot and Mario Ellie.... 4-2. Nobody really talks about the effect of losing Elliot and Ellie were for the Spurs. They had a squad that could have been dynasty had they remained healthy.

Lakers vs. Houston. 1st yr Houston team Loses 4-2. I don't know how that team won. I guess it was the Knicks and their Choke. 2nd yr Houston team wins 4-2. Another case of a team that should have been a dynasty. Shaq led his magic in to play Houston with Hakeem and Drexler. And they got Molly Whopped. 4-0. At that time... Shaq = Healthy, Penny = Healthy, Anderson, Scott = Healthy. They ran through the East and JORDAN... But the problem was Houston was Healthy too. That team had too much teamwork and Hakeem was just too damn good. He wiped the floor with Young Shaq, he would have fustrated and used older Shaq too.

Lakers vs. Lakers (with Magic). I think this Laker team is not as talented. Magic's Lakers were HUGE. When you think of it. From 7'2 Kareem to 6'9 Magic. I got some issues with Matchup. Fox vs. Worthy? Come on... Kobe vs. Scott. I think Kobe would take Scott. Magic vs. Fisher... Come on. Shaq vs. Kareem (depends on what yr) Kareem in his old age still knew where to stand and he could still get the Air Hook off. That would actually be fun to watch... Until Magic and Worthy break off for 30 apiece. I think that Laker team was just too BIG. I saw an old game the other day and damnit, the Lakers didn't have anyone shorter than 6'9 on the floor.

[Guest]

Agreed.Shaq and Kobe,but the rest of the cast

are some of the worst players in the league

like Samki Walker.That guy can't even average

6PPG as a starter!Derek Fisher is really a backup

that had one good playoff season.

The Lakers feel as though the Kings will go away

like Portland did and the Kings probably will.That

is why the Lakers are so confident.

[Diesel]

What happened to all those teams that the Lakers "dominated"??

They changed.

San Antonio... Sean Elliot retired. Derrick Anderson was traded for Smitty.

Indy..... Davis was traded. Jackson was traded. Smits, Perkins, and McKey retired.

Portland..... Smitty was traded. Sabonis retired.

Philly..... Tmac, THill, Lynch, all traded. Geiger retired. Cancerous Coleman was picked up.

However, the Kings kept all their important pieces... AND they added two more. Clark won't be a Shaq Stopper, but he's another good player that can be thrown in the mix. NJ changed but it's hard to tell if it was for the better or not. That all depends on Deke and Jefferson.

I expect that the Lakers will have some competition in the West with Dallas and Sacramento being two super teams. The Lakers have gotten older. They will have to face better than they have been facing.

[nbafan]

I think most people would agree that Sacramento is the deepest, most talented team in the league, with Dallas a close second. Talent is only one component of a championship team. The Lakers have won because they have two superstars that carry most of the scoring burden, with role players that make big shots, and they absolutely lock teams up defensively in the fourth quarter of big games. It happened repeatedly in the Sacramento series as well. The Western Conference will come down to the Kings and Lakers (barring injuries to either team) and will be determined by whether or not Sacramento can run their offense, make good shots in crunch time and play defense.

I agree that the Lakers are a year older but Horry is 32 and Fox is 33, they both still have several years left. Shaq is still only 30. Let's not forget that one of the keys to the Kings run was the play of Vlade and he will be 35 during the season. When will those 3 packs a day finally catch up with him.

[Diesel]

Some of it is two superstars... But hell there are a lot of teams with 2 great players.

Mainly... The lakers Win for these reasons:

1. Shaq. The most dominant force in the game. (But that's not even 40% of the reason.

2. Talented role players Fisher, Horry, and Fox are all clutch and all come up Big when it counts. But we're still not up to 40% of the reason.

3. Phil Jackson. (this is about 30% of the reason). The yr before Phil came, the Lakers had the same squad. Couldn't beat San Antonio. Phil comes and the Lakers win. Phil knows how to work the press and the refs. He uses the press to influence the refs. For instance, this yr. The refs were down right stupid in game 6 with the Kings. How many fouls in the 4th? There was an inordinate amount of fouls called on the Kings that turned the tide of that game.

4. THE REFs. Several incidents that I can point out that shows that had it not been for the influence of the refs... It's possible that the Lakers would not have beat a certain opponent.

Portland - Lakers. The refs throwing Wallace out of the game for looking did 2 things. First It lost game 1 for Portland. Second, it set a tone that Wallace was a Marked MAN. Portland was definitely better. Portland definitely outplayed the Lakers for 5 of the 7 games. Portland was given a bad deal... How many technicals did the Refs give Wallace in that series. It's like giving a knockout puncher a sedation pill before a fight.

Philly - I don't think Philly would have won the series but the way that the refs allowed Iverson to be raped by Lue was down right hypocritical. They give Jordan, Bird, Kobe, etc the touch foul calls but here's the League MVP, top scorer, etc and the refs allow him to get Mauled on every play (after Philly's game 1 victory in La) and it's OK. It's not OK.

Kings. I have already mentioned the Kings plight.

Now everyone always say, Well this team should have won in game 7 if they were better? However it's discouraging to have the refs give the Lakers victories and in PTLs case, it was like Wallace started the game with One Technical and the Ref with the Whistle on his mouth.

5. Health. The Lakers have the best Health out of all the teams that they play.

Questions:

What happens if Peja starts off the series Healthy?

What happens in Yr 1 if Duncan doesn't get hurt in the Phoenix series?

What happens in Yr 1 and 2 if Sean Elliot doesn't have the kidney problem?

What happens in Yr 2 If Derrick Anderson doesn't get his collar bone Broken By Juwuan Howard?

What happens if Philly doesn't show up with Lynch out, Snow with a Broken Foot, Iverson with a Host of ailments, and Geiger not 100%?

For at least 2 of those accounts, I see the Lakers Losing the series.

6. Luck of the draw.

There are certain teams I think that would have given the Lakers trouble.

Year 1,2 - Utah. Shaq has never been good at defending the pick and roll. Stockton has always had his way against Fisher.

Year 3 - Dallas. Dallas ran into a more talented SacTown team... But what would have happened, if the Lakers had played them?

Year 2 - Matchup in finals against Toronto? This would have been interesting. Kobe vs. Carter. AD vs. Shaq. Clark, JYD, AW, Childs.... I think that the Lakers would have won, but it would have been a harder series than the injured Sixers.

[Traceman]

None! Zero! Nada! You argue on one side of an issue and then SHAMELESSLY jump to the other side of the issue to justify your position in a different argument! You just said that Phil Jackson was only the 7th best coach in the NBA and now all of a sudden because you are hatin' on Kobe, Phil is THIRTY PERCENT of the reason the Lakers win? Give me a break!

Just a short while ago, you said:

"7. Phil Jackson - If I just looked at results, I'd have to say that Phil deserved to be much higher. But he has the BEST PLAYERS in the game. I don't have to wonder why Phil turned down the NJ job 2 weeks before he took the Lakers job. It had nothing to do with Heart, it was all about Talent. Phil needs the game's most dominant player. IN OTHER WORDS, JUST ABOUT ANYONE COULD HAVE COACHED THAT TEAM."

So "just about anyone" could have coached the Lakers to 3 titles in a row but Phil is responsible for 30% of their success now that you are Kobe hatin'?

If that's not bad enough, in response to whether or not Phil was responsible for the Lakers success you said:

" I DON'T THINK SO.

Phil is in the right place at the right time with the right people.

First off, he always has the most Dominant player in the game (Jordan/Shaq). Second, he always have another dream team type player to play alongside him (Pippen Kobe). Third, he always catches his team as a dynasty is ending."

If Shaq is "not even 40% of the reason" for the Lakers success and Phil is "about 30% of the reason", how can you say that Phil is not a great coach?

Combine all of the above with your suggestion that "talented, clutch role players" (Fox, Horry & Fisher)played a more significant role in the Lakers success than one of the top 5 players in the NBA and you look like a no credibility-having clown! I love it!

Let me get this straight.

1) Phil is only the 7th best coach in the NBA but he is 30% responsible for the Lakers winning 3 titles in a row.

2) Shaq is less than 40% responsible for the Lakers winning 3 titles in a row.

3) The role players on the Lakers are more responsible for the Lakers' success than Kobe.

4) When all else fails, blame the refs.

The Spin Doctor at his best!

[chillzatl]

You always give excuses for why the OTHER teams lost instead of giving credit to the Lakers for just being a good team. They are the Yankees of the NBA and I love seeing them lose. But trying to paint excuses for why the other teams didn't win is the sign of a sore loser, through and through. 75% of the reason they win is Shaq and Kobe. If it wasn't for those two, they wouldn't get close enough for the role players or the coach to matter.

Trying to use the other teams injuries as an excuse is especially weak coming from you. You wouldn't use injuries to defend our poor season. But you use it to explain away the Lakers winning? I'd expect better from you.

Drawing conspiracy theories around the officiating is just plain laughable. Find me one winning team in NBA history that didn't get the breaks in the finals series! Heck, you could explain away every ring Michael Jordan got with that one.

[chillzatl]

You caught him red handed! HEHE. He will ignore anything if he thinks it helps him prove his point, even his own words. He's been trying to convince us all that the lakers aren't that good, Shaq isn't great and that Kobe isn't a franchise player for a while now. It's almost impossible to tell that he doesn't like them very much!

[Diesel]

In reply to:

---

You just said that Phil Jackson was only the 7th best coach in the NBA and now all of a sudden because you are hatin' on Kobe, Phil is THIRTY PERCENT of the reason the Lakers win? Give me a break!

---

Those other six on my list could have led the Lakers to a championship too. Did you see Randy Pfund or Del Harris on my List?

Secondly, you try to build a mountain... However, do you know how much 30% is? I didn't say Phil was 100% of the reason the Lakers won. I said 30%. Let's think about 30%?

Trace, if you only made 30% of your salary.....

If your woman only loved you 30% of the time.....

If You were only awake 30% of the day.....

However, you want to come here and preach how 30% means a whole lot. Come on?

Get a grip Kobelover.

[Diesel]

In reply to:

---

Drawing conspiracy theories around the officiating is just plain laughable. Find me one winning team in NBA history that didn't get the breaks in the finals series! Heck, you could explain away every ring Michael Jordan got with that one.

---

So, it's Ok to not have a level playing field as long as the publics favorite team wins?

You say it's laughable. My question is: Did it happen or not?

Did the refs throw Wallace out of game 1 which Portland went on to lose and then marked Wallace the whole Series?

You say Jordan's rings were a result of favoritism, yet I don't remember anybody else in the history of basketball getting thrown out for Looking. Else, Jordan should have been thrown out of many games.

Did the refs call an inordinate number of touch fouls on the Kings in game 6 ( late) that resulted in the Lakers getting back into the series??

That was Blatant.

Did the refs allow Tyron Lue to grab, hold push, hold shirt, shorts or whatever he could get of Iverson in the championship finals. I have never seen a star player get raped like that on the court since or before?

See you want to say, well it's a part of the game... However, it's not. The refs have been allowed to determine the outcome of games and to put their mark on series and in these three times, it was to the Lakers benefit. I can't say that I have seen many other teams benefit. I believe George Karl had a problem with his team losing to Philly a few yrs ago. However, you can't deny that these things did happen.

[Traceman]

me 30% less, that would be pretty damn significant!

[Diesel]

Phil making 30% and being 7th best coach is very possible. Again, Phil needs to have the most domainant player in the game to be successful (win titles). The yrs he didn't have Jordan or Shaq, he didn't win the title.

However, those 6 above Phil, can flat out coach. Secondly, a good coach produces good players. Phil takes good players and win with them. IS he a better coach than Carlisle who wins with Ben Wallace, Cliff Robinson, and Stackhouse?

[chillzatl]

wallace marked himself way before that happened. He had an entire season to mock the refs and make an a** out of himself. You wouldn't defend him if you weren't trying to prove one of your points anyway. He brought it on himself. Don't try to pin the blame for his stupidity and childish behavior on the refs. save some of your credibility for the season.

[Traceman]

Personally, I don't think ANY coach makes a 30% difference in his team's wins and losses in the NBA. I think coaching can be that last bit that gets an already talented team over the top but I don't think it's THAT big of a difference. I think ANY NBA coach could coach the Lakers and they wouldn't lose 30% more games than they would under Phil. They might not win the NBA title with any NBA coach but there is no doubt that they would still be a top 5 team.

[Guest]

Trace, I agree, but perhaps with an asterix...the Shaq Kobe feud from two years back - Phil's ability to handle his players and their egos - from superstars to bench players who only see pt on the practice court - is probably his biggest asset. The Triangle is Tex's though Phil's name is obviously mentioned in the same breath.

But I seriously wonder if Kobe would have demanded a trade (or the big fella) or something to that liking under almost any other coach. Like it or not, Phil's ability to get EVERYONE on the team to buy into his plan is by far his best side.

That being said, I don't know if the Lakers would be who they are, with any rings, let alone three, without him. In fact, I seriously doubt it. Phil Jackson, NBA Finals/ post season Sixth man of the year (for at least the past three years).

[Guest Walter]

...however, (and you may not disagree with this) but undoubtedly Phil Jackson has caused the Lakers to win 30% more titles under him than they would have under any other coach much less say the average NBA coach. He's just that good and perfect for taking a talented enough team (or very nearly one definately NOT talented enough when MJ first retired and Pippen "led" the team to one play from the finals) and making it a champion. Ask Del Harris and Doug Collins. Both decent to very good coaches. Both look the fool next to what Phil Jackson has accomplished nearly every year he has coached with or without his superstars.

I think Phil Jackson's impact on his team relative to other NBA coaches on their teams in the post-season may be even greater than the considerable 30% being thrown about here.

W

W

[Traceman]

Phil has proven that he can win the big games CONSISTENTLY and that's what separates him from the other good coaches in the league in my opinion. Many other coaches can consistently win games and GET to the playoffs but Phil not only gets there, most of the time he wins! The Lakers MIGHT have won multiple titles under another coach but I don't know of any other coach who could have handled the Shaq/Kobe situation the way Phil did and that is why LA 3-peated.