Andrew Bynum is better than Dwight Howard in the same way that Kobe Bryant is better than Lebron James.
Just to be crystal clear, that is — NOT…AT…ALL.
Four seasons ago, Bryant was a better overall player despite posting worse box score stats and advanced statistics because he had the Association’s most complete skill set. But over the past four years, Lebron (who is entering his prime) has surpassed Bryant (who exited his prime two years ago) in nearly every way save freethrow shooting.
The difference in the comparison is that Howard is and has been better than Bynum in every way -- faster, more athletic, a defensive juggernaut, a more consistent and higher grade motor, a better finisher -- save freethrow shooting.
After not having played a game since last March, enduring months of rehabbing his back, and having limited practice time with his new teammates, Howard put up 19 points, 12 rebounds and four blocks on Sunday, and did so with ease. That sort of statline would have been big headlines for Bynum, but for Howard, it was seen as somewhat disappointing. That said, you could see how he'll be an ideal fit for this Lakers squad. His presence alone shores up any leaky holes in the defense, and his ability to finish with such certitude will make every player on the Lakers look like Andre Miller throwing oops at the rim.
But Sunday's game was still disappointing. And it should be. Despite the impressive job by the starters who shot 53 percent and had 16 of the team's 22 assists, the bench got outscored 57-18 and the Purp and Gold ended up losing to the Sacramento Kings.
But, as with any team sport, it takes time to become a team. Lakers fans are spoiled because of how seamlessly Pau Gasol fit into the Lakers offense when he was acquired back in 2008. However, he was an ideal fit for the Triangle Offense, an offense the rest of the team had been running for three years, and he’s an extremely intelligent player. Furthermore, the Triangle is designed to maximize created space and entrusts the players to make the right basketball plays for any given situation. Save for at times over-passing, Gasol is as good as anyone at making the right basketball play.
This season, the Lakers are trying to incorporate a new offense (Princeton) along with two new players, both who are used to dominating the ball. Add that to the most ball dominating guard since Michael Jordan and it’s easy to see why it will take some time to get the flow down, even if everyone is committed to team basketball.
The 2008 Lakers got to the Finals, as did the 2011 Miami Heat, but both failed to win it all in their first season together. There is a real possibility that the 2013 Lakers face a similar situation.
And while Howard is an ideal fit, I wonder about Steve Nash and Bryant.
ESPN recently ran a story about what writer Tom Habestroh calls “The Nash Effect.”
And while Howard is an ideal fit, I wonder about Steve Nash and Bryant.
ESPN recently ran a story about what writer Tom Habestroh calls “The Nash Effect.”
The article presents plenty of numbers, both advanced and basic, to support this theory. (By all means, read the piece because it certainly is worth it.)
In summation, last season with Nash on the floor running the show, the Suns played dramatically better, as in San-Antonio-best-offensive-team-in-the-league good. But as soon as he stepped off the court, his supporting cast all shot dramatically worse, as in Charlotte-worst-offensive-team-in-the-league bad.
That’s a shocking disparity and one that should be examined. That examination should go no further than Nash’s backup. Sebastian Telfair came into the league with a lot of hype—hype that over the next couple of years vanished into reality. Telfair is fast and can get into the key, but the rest of his game leaves much to be desired. His court vision is subpar. His decision making suspect. His finishing skills are atrocious. And while he has improved his outside shot over the past couple of seasons, nobody is mistaking him for, well, Nash. (Telfair is a career .393 percent shooter and that’s overall, not from beyond the arc).
Backups are backups for a reason. And before coming to Phoenix, Telfair was the backup and backup to the backup with the Clippers, Wolves, and Cavs. So, last year when Nash exited the game, he was being replaced by a point guard that was beyond ill-suited to replicate the things he does so well.
As a counterpoint, all the guys Bryant has made better over his career, not only failed to be better once they left, but many of them failed to stick in the NBA at all. David Freidman of 20SecondTimeout has an excellent post that delves deeper into this issue. Again, some excellent reading. Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, Brian Cook, and Sasha Vujacic are all out of the league. Lamar Odom was gawd awful the second he left the Lakers. Trevor Ariza has played dramatically worse since his breakout 2009 campaign with the Purple and Gold. And, as I have laid out in previous postings, Bynum is in for a rude awakening--if and when he actually takes the court.
Another way to look at the "Nash Effect" is through the prism of how his team fared once he left. We won't know how good this current Suns team will be until they take the floor, but we do have at least one historical comparison. Eight years ago, the Dallas Mavericks replaced Nash with Jason Terry. While Terry is not the player that Nash is, he played well enough to be the second leading scorer on the Dallas teams that went to the NBA Finals in 2006, went 67-15 in 2007, and won the NBA championship in 2011. That's two finals appearances and the best record in the league, things Nash was unable to achieve in Dallas, or in Phoenix.
This is not to say that Nash doesn’t positively affect his teammates. He certainly does. And, the majority of players respond much better to his brand of leadership—high fives, back slaps, and encouraging words, as well as continued looks their way—than they do to Bryant’s scowls, f-bombs, icy silence, and hijacking of the offense (no matter how many games he's won by his lonesome).
But, Bryant has five championship rings, two of which (I’d say three, but many would vehemently disagree) he earned as the best player on the team. Nash has never been to the finals. (On a quick tangent, I really like this yin and yang, good cop, bad cop thing going on with Nash and Bryant. It's sort of like Derek Fisher/Odom and Bryant during the back-to-back chips.)
That’s a shocking disparity and one that should be examined. That examination should go no further than Nash’s backup. Sebastian Telfair came into the league with a lot of hype—hype that over the next couple of years vanished into reality. Telfair is fast and can get into the key, but the rest of his game leaves much to be desired. His court vision is subpar. His decision making suspect. His finishing skills are atrocious. And while he has improved his outside shot over the past couple of seasons, nobody is mistaking him for, well, Nash. (Telfair is a career .393 percent shooter and that’s overall, not from beyond the arc).
Backups are backups for a reason. And before coming to Phoenix, Telfair was the backup and backup to the backup with the Clippers, Wolves, and Cavs. So, last year when Nash exited the game, he was being replaced by a point guard that was beyond ill-suited to replicate the things he does so well.
Going back further, it's questionable how much better Nash made Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw, Joe Johnson, Marcin Gortat, etc. All of those guys have been successful on their own. Johnson has been a multiple All-Star selection. Stoudemire was an early MVP candidate in 2011. Marion was invaluable to the Mavericks when they won it all two seasons ago. Diaw helped propel the Spurs on their epic win streak last year. And I believe Gortat is going to play just fine alongside Goran Dragic.
Another way to look at the "Nash Effect" is through the prism of how his team fared once he left. We won't know how good this current Suns team will be until they take the floor, but we do have at least one historical comparison. Eight years ago, the Dallas Mavericks replaced Nash with Jason Terry. While Terry is not the player that Nash is, he played well enough to be the second leading scorer on the Dallas teams that went to the NBA Finals in 2006, went 67-15 in 2007, and won the NBA championship in 2011. That's two finals appearances and the best record in the league, things Nash was unable to achieve in Dallas, or in Phoenix.
This is not to say that Nash doesn’t positively affect his teammates. He certainly does. And, the majority of players respond much better to his brand of leadership—high fives, back slaps, and encouraging words, as well as continued looks their way—than they do to Bryant’s scowls, f-bombs, icy silence, and hijacking of the offense (no matter how many games he's won by his lonesome).
But, Bryant has five championship rings, two of which (I’d say three, but many would vehemently disagree) he earned as the best player on the team. Nash has never been to the finals. (On a quick tangent, I really like this yin and yang, good cop, bad cop thing going on with Nash and Bryant. It's sort of like Derek Fisher/Odom and Bryant during the back-to-back chips.)
But, in terms of Nash riding in and making everyone on this current Lakers team better simply by being Nash...well, I am skeptical.
Bryant's never played with a ball-dominant point guard. He's never even played with a traditional point guard. Nick Van Exel set up his entire game through scoring. Chucky Atkins played like his first name. Fisher rarely ever handled the ball. Gary Payton went from a top-10 point guard in the league, to being blamed for everything that went wrong with the Lakers in 04 (despite the fact he played in all 82 and carried the team while Bryant was flying back and forth to Denver, Shaq was playing himself into shape, and Malone dealt with the first major injury of his career).
In fact, the reason Bryant has become such a ball dominant guard has been out of necessity. When Bryant was teamed up with Shaquille O'Neal, he played the Scottie Pippen role in the offense as the team's wing stopper and the offensive initiator. When Shaq was traded to Miami and Bryant played sans another all-star, Bryant assumed both the Jordan and Pippen roles. Meaning, he initiated the offense for everyone else, and was relied upon to shoulder the majority of the offensive load. It's no wonder he called his number so often with the options he had around him.
Now, in his 17th season, he is expected to suddenly change his spots?
He says he is willing. Nash says he is willing. But Bryant has never been a spot up shooter, and while he moves well without the ball, he's no longer an elite athlete. There will be problems. Especially at the end of games. We already saw this come to fruition at the end of that Sacramento game on Sunday. Bryant jacked up a fadeway three from four feet beyond the arc--the worst suboptimal shot in basketball, made even more difficult with the fade.
The ball should have been in Nash's hands. Bryant could have had the shot in the end, but Nash should have been the one to deliver it to him.
I believe that ultimately, Bryant and Nash will be able to work well together because both are two of the smartest players to have ever played the game. But it will take time. Maybe even a year...
Part II
No comments:
Post a Comment