OFFICIAL LAKERS 2009/2010 (57-25) 2009-2010 CHAMPIONS!!!!!!!

[darthska]

Nah, it's not that I don't like him, and it's not that I have these unreasonable expectations of him.

It's that I'm wondering how long 'He's got so much potential!' is going to be the reason for keeping him.

For me, 'Do you remember the .4 shot, the steal and dunk on Iverson?!' are reasons you keep a guy (Fish). Performance.

'Do you remember the lob to Shaq against the Blazers, the game ending shot against the Suns, the deep 3 against the Pistons in the Finals, the countless dribble-drives that lead to assists for Shaq/Pau?!' are reasons you give a guy praise (Kobe). Performance.

'Do ou remember the... the ummm... remember that one time... when he... ... ... uuuuhhh... he's got so much potential! He's only 21!' is not a reason to use year after year after year after year after year. Two, maybe 3 years, then 'He's got so much potential!' should have been replaced by CONCRETE reasons. Performance. Not a triple double or averaging a million rebounds, but... something that stands out to replace 'He's got so much potential! He's only 19', and then 'He's only 20!' and then 'He's only 21!'

 

[fro b giant]

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

Nah, I wasn't trying to disregard your other points. My bad. Just responded to the 'wrong place, wrong time' logic, because I hate hearing that when Dwight is both taller and heavier, and has never missed time. Like I said, I guess it's because of luck.

The reason I'm sarcastically throwing luck out there is because the real reason behind being taller and heavier yet never missing time is because of his own studying (which would go back to work ethic). First off, right off the bat, without looking at any youtube clips of Bynum/Howard or anything, just off the top of my head, Howard is far more active in the paint, constantly moving and positioning/re-positioning. Bynum is like a tree. That's cool, cause he's a 7-footer, so having a 7-footer stand there definitely discourages any penetration from opponents... but it also leaves you more vulnerable to freak injuries.

That's just one thing. Bottom line: Dwight is taller, heavier, and has never missed significant time, while Bynum has, 3 times. That cannot be attributed to dumb luck, bad luck, or any kind of luck.

Dwight is shorter and weighs less btw

 

[CP1708]

Take note of the low minutes he played but still putting up BIG numbers.  The last number is his season this year at 22, playing ONLY 30 minutes a game, you don't think given the extra 6-7-8 minutes other starters get, he couldn't get another 2 buckets and 2 boards to reach 20 and 10, large numbers by most people's standards? 

This was just before he got hurt.  When Kobe fell back into his knee, under the rim.  Sucks he got hurt, but had he not, how long would this streak have gone on, at the ripe age of 21?   That's an indicator of future success isn't it? 

What about the game's he's had vs Tim Duncan? 

1/21	@Lac	W 108-97	36	17-24	.708	0-0	--	8-11	.727	0	3	2	2	8	7	15	0	42
1/22	Was	W 117-97	28	8-12	.667	0-0	--	7-8	.875	0	1	2	1	4	10	14	2	23
1/25	Sas	W 99-85	24	4-10	.400	0-0	--	7-8	.875	1	4	2	2	4	7	11	1	15
1/27	Cha	L 117-110	41	10-14	.714	0-0	--	4-5	.800	0	6	4	2	2	12	14	1	24
1/30	@Min	W132-119	30	10-15	.667	0-0	--	7-8	.875	0	2	2	4	7	8	15	1	27

  

30.4

6.0-10.6

0.0-0.0

3.0-4.0

0.54

1.4

1.77

3.0

2.7

5.6

8.3

1.0

15.0

 

[fro b giant]

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

Nah, it's not that I don't like him, and it's not that I have these unreasonable expectations of him.

It's that I'm wondering how long 'He's got so much potential!' is going to be the reason for keeping him.

For me, 'Do you remember the .4 shot, the steal and dunk on Iverson?!' are reasons you keep a guy (Fish). Performance.

'Do you remember the lob to Shaq against the Blazers, the game ending shot against the Suns, the deep 3 against the Pistons in the Finals, the countless dribble-drives that lead to assists for Shaq/Pau?!' are reasons you give a guy praise (Kobe). Performance.

'Do ou remember the... the ummm... remember that one time... when he... ... ... uuuuhhh... he's got so much potential! He's only 21!' is not a reason to use year after year after year after year after year. Two, maybe 3 years, then 'He's got so much potential!' should have been replaced by CONCRETE reasons. Performance. Not a triple double or averaging a million rebounds, but... something that stands out to replace 'He's got so much potential! He's only 19', and then 'He's only 20!' and then 'He's only 21!'

By this response I can see what you expect of him. You compare him to Kobe, Shaq, Fisher which have all played way more playoff games than he has. You are comparing the play of arguably 2 of the top 10 players ever to play the game. 
Your expectations are so high for this guy that you can't be satisfied with what he does produce and do for the Lakers.

Give him three post season, which is at least what the players in your examples had and then you can revisit the whole Bynum Playoff memories thing.

 

[darthska]

Is he really?

*checks basketball-reference*

Well I'll be damned.
Dwight: 6'11", 240
Drew: 7'0", 285

So... Howard is taller, weights more, and has never missed significant time while Bynum has 3 times.

There.

 

[fro b giant]

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

Is he really?

*checks basketball-reference*

Well I'll be damned.
Dwight: 6'11", 240
Drew: 7'0", 285

So... Howard is taller, weights more, and has never missed significant time while Bynum has 3 times, 2 of those times were freak accidents while playing the same team, hmmm the odds...

There.

Fixed 

Back at ya 

 

[darthska]

No, I didn't compare him to Kobe, or Shaq, or Fisher. Just because I brought up their names doesn't mean there's a comparison. I hate when people run to that logic.'He brought up Kareem! He's comparing Bynum to Kareem!'

Playoff performance is the reason you praise a guy (there, no name has been inserted in the statement).

Playoff performance is the reason you keep a guy (again, no names).

What reasons, other than 'He's got so much potential!' and 'He's young!' are there to keep him?

Again, I'm looking for an answer that rests on playoff performances, because he's been with the team long enough to have had some playoff-centered reasoning by now. Give him 3 playoffs? How long has he been with the team? How many playoffs has the team had since he showed up? More than three.

CP: having a nice little stretch of games that was stopped by injury is what actually happened; having a nice stretch of games that might have continued for umpteen games is not what actually happened. And when something happens repeatedly, for me anyways, I have to rely more heavily on that then on whatever possibilities I thought might have happened otherwise.

 

[darthska]

Like I said earlier, if I'm late to work repeatedly for legitimate freak accidents, my employer isn't going to care one bit. They'll come to a point where they'd rather have sommeone who doesn't have freak accidents and can come to work on time.

I'm at that point with Bynum. Freak accidents or not, it's missed time. Does it matter why he wasn't on the floor against the Celtics a couple years ago? Not to me; we didn't get spotted any points because of any freak injuries.

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

No, I didn't compare him to Kobe, or Shaq, or Fisher. Just because I brought up their names doesn't mean there's a comparison. I hate when people run to that logic.'He brought up Kareem! He's comparing Bynum to Kareem!'

Playoff performance is the reason you praise a guy (there, no name has been inserted in the statement).

Playoff performance is the reason you keep a guy (again, no names).

What reason, other than 'He's got so much potential!' and 'He's young!' are there to keep him?

Again, I'm looking for an answer that rests on playoff performances, because he's been with the team long enough to have had some playoff-centered reasoning by now. Give him 3 playoffs? How long has he been with the team? How many playoffs has the team had since he showed up? More than three.

CP: having a nice little stretch of games that was stopped by injury is what actually happened; having a nice stretch of games that might have continued for umpteen games is not what actually happened. And when something happens repeatedly, for me anyways, I have to rely more heavily on that then on whatever possibilities I thought might have happened otherwise.

I agree for the most part.  Gimme a playoff dude over a regular season monster any day.  What I'm asking for is a little patience from fellow Laker brothers to let the kid get into the postseason a little more and see if he can do some things.  We have such a small sample size right now. 

He's had ONE playoff run.  08 he was hurt.  07 and 06 DO NOT COUNT.  No way.  That's like saying Kobe isn't a good playoff performer based off what he did as an 18-19 year old.  NOTHING. 
Let the kid, as a major contributor now, not the 12th man off the bench, have some time. 

  

 

[westcoastsfinest]

ska i agree with you for the most part but he gets traded he wont be irrelevent like kwame, cookie and smush

i mean hes not THAT badhe'll be a 1 or 2 option for another teamthe thing with drew is that for the 10th pick in the draft and with a huge contract...he hasnt produced much...hes a let down for a championship team...he was basically a non factor last year for us and finally he is a Laker...anyone who puts on the uniform is expected to produceto sum it up drew is just soft

 

[fro b giant]

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

No, I didn't compare him to Kobe, or Shaq, or Fisher. Jusst because I brought up their names doesn't mean there's a comparison. I hate when people run to that logic.'He brought up Kareem! He's comparing Bynum to Kareem!'

Playoff performance is the reason you raise a guy (there, no name has been inserted in the statement).

Playoff performance is the reason you keep a guy (again, no names).

What reason, other than 'He's got so much potential!' and 'He's young!' is there to keep him?

Again, I'm looking for an answer that rests on playoff performances, because he's been with the team long enough to have had some playoff-centered reasoning by now.

CP: having a nice little stretch of games that was stopped by injury is what actually happened; having a nice stretch of games that might have continued for umpteen games is not what actually happened. And when something happens repeatedly, for me anyways, I have to rely more heavily on that then on whatever possibilities I thought might have happened otherwise.

I understand your playoff logic, hopefully he gets back before the playoffs healthy and he can make some memories for us.
btw: Bynum Ranks #19 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes (30.01). That's pretty good to me.

 

[darthska]

CP1708:

---

He's had ONE playoff run.  08 he was hurt.  07 and 06 DO NOT COUNT.  No way.  That's like saying Kobe isn't a good playoff performer based off what he did as an 18-19 year old.  NOTHING. 
Let the kid, as a major contributor now, not the 12th man off the bench, have some time.
Like hell they don't.

Maybe not to you. They count to me.

And yes, Kobe's airballs in Utah under Del Harris still count to me. Thing is, it was all uphill from there for him. My antipathy for him aside, I'm still able to recognize that those airballs fueled him to be the monster he is today. They count, he hated that he did them, and now he's a player that a LARGE majority of the league name when asked 'Opponents ball w/ no time outs and your team up is two, 5 seconds left in the game. Who are you most afraid of?' Would anyone have answered that after the airballs? 'Oh, that Kobe kid. That's who I'd be most afraid of' would rolled off of NOBODY'S tongue after those terrible misfires against the Jazz. But now? Performance after performance.

So there's '06 and '07 for Drew, and then... massive improvements in the playoffs, right? No? Minimal improvement in the playoffs? No, not that either? Alright, how about just suiting up and being average in all of the playoff runs we've had since he joined the team? NO?! We can't even say THAT?!

That's where I'm coming from.

 

[fro b giant]

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

Like I said earlier, if I'm late to work repeatedly for legitimate freak accidents, my employer isn't going to care one bit. They'll come to a point where they'd rather have sommeone who doesn't have freak accidents and can come to work on time.

I'm at that point with Bynum. Freak accidents or not, it's missed time. Does it matter why he wasn't on the floor against the Celtics a couple years ago? Not to me; we didn't get spotted any points because of any freak injuries.

I don't think Bynum's employer is complaining about his being late. I understand now, you are a bottom line guy, you don't care how or why you just want to see results. I will remember that when reading your posts because it helps to understand where someone is coming from. In other words it helps to understand why...

 

[darthska]

Fro B Giant:

---

23ska909red02:

---

Like I said earlier, if I'm late to work repeatedly for legitimate freak accidents, my employer isn't going to care one bit. They'll come to a point where they'd rather have sommeone who doesn't have freak accidents and can come to work on time.

I'm at that point with Bynum. Freak accidents or not, it's missed time. Does it matter why he wasn't on the floor against the Celtics a couple years ago? Not to me; we didn't get spotted any points because of any freak injuries.
I don't think Bynum's employer is complaining about his being late. I understand now, you are a bottom line guy, you don't care how or why you just want to see results. I will remember that when reading your posts because it helps to understand where someone is coming from. In other words it helps to understand why...

Yes.

Fro B Giant:

---

23ska909red02:

---

No, I didn't compare him to Kobe, or Shaq, or Fisher. Just because I brought up their names doesn't mean there's a comparison. I hate when people run to that logic.'He brought up Kareem! He's comparing Bynum to Kareem!'

Playoff performance is the reason you raise a guy (there, no name has been inserted in the statement).

Playoff performance is the reason you keep a guy (again, no names).

What reasons, other than 'He's got so much potential!' and 'He's young!' is there to keep him?

Again, I'm looking for an answer that rests on playoff performances, because he's been with the team long enough to have had some playoff-centered reasoning by now.

CP: having a nice little stretch of games that was stopped by injury is what actually happened; having a nice stretch of games that might have continued for umpteen games is not what actually happened. And when something happens repeatedly, for me anyways, I have to rely more heavily on that then on whatever possibilities I thought might have happened otherwise.
I understand your playoff logic, hopefully he gets back before the playoffs healthy and he can make some memories for us.
btw: Bynum Ranks #19 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes (30.01). That's pretty good to me.

Agreed.

 

[CP1708]

Phil didn't even put the kid on the court.  Del Harris is a far cry from Phil Jackson

 

[darthska]

CP1708:

---

Phil didn't even put the kid on the court.  Del Harris is a far cry from Phil Jackson
That's on Phil for not putting him in... AND ON BYNUM FOR NOT GIVING HIM A REASON TO.

He put him in for a game in '06; Drew got a couple points and a no boards.

Put him in for 5 games in '07, resulting in an average of 4 points and nearly 5 rebounds (after going for 8 and 6 in 82 reg. season games)

And even removing his '06 and '07, he averaged 6 points and 4 boards in 23 games last postseason. Whoa-hoooa!! Stop the presses!! Dude is a BEAST!!!

And this was after going 14 and 8 in 50 reg. season games.

 

[CP1708]

Like I said, give him the time. 

Make no mistake, he doesn't have the killer instinct yet of Tim Duncan. Nor Kobe. 

No doubt whatsoever that those airballs were bad for the NBA and great for the LA Lakers.  I am completely aware of that. 

But we gotta let Bynum settle in and get put in places to succeed.  Those minutes in 07 from Phil, bits and peices.  Not solid 10 minute stretches or anything, end of a quarter here, start of a quarter there, nothing Bynum could work on, learn from.  Heck, every little bit helps, but it doesn't tell a whole story. 

Luke Walton was GREAT in the finals vs the Pistons.  For a few seconds each game.  Luke Walton some playoff killer since then? 

 

Let's just give the kid time to work himself out.  Maybe he'll get some of that drive.  Gain some anger.  An attitude.  Then we can judge him a little more accurately. 

 

[darthska]

See, for you, you're waiting for MORE complete playoff runs, not just last year.

For me, I've seen enough in his multiple regular seasons, his bits and pieces playoffs, and his one complete playoff run (last season).

And Luke Walton? Nobody's hanging any franchise tags on him, arguing that we keep him over guys like Kidd. Trust, if anyone wanted Kidd for Walton a few years ago and Laker fans were like 'Nah, we can't do that', I'd be just as salty today were it offered and declined. And if anyone were saying today 'Give Walton time; he can be a solid foundation for us to build around', my responses would make me look like just as much of a hater as I probably do with Bynum right now.

 

[CP1708]

^
Exactly.  Reason being, Walton hasn't shown the glimpses Bynum has.  Walton isn't 7 feet almost 300 pounds, a rare commodity.  Hence the reason Bynum is an asset, even if he hasn't yet lived up to what we want. 
You can't tell me you haven't seen Bynum have games where you thought he could beat down teams or carry us stretches.  I know you have, cuz I've seen em.  He played great in the Boston game in Boston, and then Phil took him out for half a damn quarter and Bynum got lost in the shuffle after that.  We don't pull Kobe out in a hot streak.  Or Pau, but he did it with Bynum.  And he does it alot.  Part of it is Phil is working him, teaching him, doing things his way, in the long run, Bynum will be better for it.  I have no doubts there, I trust Phil.  (and we all know he does strange things that only make sense to him)

 

[fro b giant]

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

See, for you, you're waiting for MORE complete playoff runs, not just last year.

For me, I've seen enough in his multiple regular seasons, his bits and pieces playoffs, and his one complete playoff run (last season).

And Luke Walton? Nobody's hanging any franchise tags on him, arguing that we keep him over guys like Kidd. Trust, if anyone wanted Kidd for Walton a few years ago and Laker fans were like 'Nah, we can't do that', I'd be just as salty today were it offered and declined. And if anyone were saying today 'Give Walton time; he can be a solid foundation for us to build around', my responses would make me look like just as much of a hater as I probably do with Bynum right now.

You are confusing me. You said you cared about playoff performance not regular season. Now you are saying you've seen enough regular season performance from Bynum, (which is not bad btw) to say you want to trade him? Which is it Mrs Briggs or Ms. Mathers?

 

[westcoastsfinest]

pffft hell yehh kobes airballs count because we had a chance to win that if he gave it to eddie or nicky v

 

[darthska]

Fro: I'm no different than anyone else who places a little weight on the regular season and a lot of weight on the playoffs. I don't know where you got that the reg. season means absolutely nothing to me, but yeah, that would be stupid. Average 30 and 18 in the regular season and then 3 and 5 in the playoffs, and you'll get my harsh criticism. Average 3 and 5 in the reg. season and then 30 and 18 in the playoffs, and you'll get my unending praise. Yes, the reg. season holds weight, but just like game 7 of the Finals matters more than what you did in game 1 of the reg. season, it holds less weight.

CP: it's 1993. A 21-yr.-old, 7-foot rookie averages 10 pts, 6 boards, and 3 blocks over 49 games for the Sixers. "He's got so much potential! Wait 'till he gets more time." The next year, he plays all 82 games, starting 59 of them. Results? 10 pts., 8 boards, 3 blocks. "He's an animal! Lock him up for years and years and years!" 3rd season, still 7 feet tall: 79 games, 68 starts, 12 pts, 8 boards, 4 blocks.

Soooo... the Sixers should have built around Shawn Bradley at that point, right? Forget what you know about him and just look at what I just posted. Seven feet tall, no major injuries, nearly a double-double his first 3 seasons in the NBA. That's worthy of 'He's got potential. Give him time. He's a rare commodity', right?

Me? If I were a Sixers fan back then, I would have been saying 'He's soft, and how has he not put on ANY weight?! I'm telling you guys, this is not an elite center in the future."

No, I'm not comparing Bradley to Bynum, nor was I comparing Shaq to Bynum earlier. I'm comparing the lack/existence of evidence to support the 'potential' tag handed to a guy. After Bradley's first 3 seasons, I would have seen nothing as a Sixers fan that would have convinced me he's the real deal. I'm in the same boat with Bynum, and it's going to take some impressive performances in the playoffs this season and next season (and for however long we have him) to convince me otherwise. Since my reasoning on an online message board counts for nothing regarding who is/isn't a Laker, I know I'm stuck w/ Bynum for awhile, so he's got time to make me respect his game... but it's up to him to force me to respect him. So far... for WHATEVER reason... he hasn't forced me to respect his game. So I don't.

 

[CP1708]

^
I get ya, I get ya.  Just looking at his numbers for those years though wouldn't show me, looking at specific games, maybe.  Bynum can go 22 and 11 vs the Warriors and 16 and 9 vs the Celtics, and the Celts game would be the "better" game.  I'm sure you understand the reasoning behind that.  So I'd have to look at what Bradley did in some of those games to know if he gave any hint of being a decent center or not. 
But really, wouldn't we all be happy if Bynum gave us 12, 8 and 4?  And right now he's 15, 8 and 2 right?  And we're bent. 

 

He just needs to get past whatever this injury is (and really, THAT is my concern.  I have this sinking feeling that his compensating for his knees and such has caused something with his achilles.  God I hope I'm wrong on that) if he gets the final 5-6 games to work on his leg, see if he's alright, then comes out and plays well in the playoffs, maybe this was just another speed bump.  If these 6 games, become 8 games, then rest of regular season, then he'll miss first round.........then we have a problem.  And I won't be very happy with Mr Bynum. 

 

[noblekane]

you get rid of bynum because he can never stay healthy. how old is he???? and how many injuries has he had already?????

and lets not even compare him to shaq who STILL at 38 years old is owning bynum's !++*+ *$* self.....

 

[fro b giant]

Ska: The only reason I brought up the reg season is because you were invalidating it earlier and saying "show me the playoff performances." The problem is Bynum doesn't have too much playing time in the playoffs to speak of. So we have to go back to regular season in which you said you have seen enough from him to know what you are getting with Bynum (which what we have seen isn't even bad). I and others disagree that all he is is a 15,8 and 2 guy. This is what he is now because he splits touches with many players on the Lakers who can score.

Shawn Bradley is a guy who had who on his team? Kobe, Gasol, Lamar, Artest type players??? NO, he had nobody like that scoring on his team, if he did, his stat line would be pretty good to me.

The big picture is:

-We have plenty of scorers, we don't need Bynum to average 25 a night.
-We just need him to be efficient, and as I pointed out he ranks #19 in efficiency rating per 48 minutes played (30+)
-Lakers are the only team with 3 players in the top 28 in the NBA Efficiency (Kobe, Gasol, Bynum)
-Our top 5 is the best in the League (Kobe, Gasol, LO, Artest, Bynum).

I didn't even say he's young and has potential 

!
Noble: No, you get rid of him, I don't.