Originally posted by LA9erFan:
True. I'd add...
6. This team's won back-to-back titles and has nothing to prove in the regular season.
I think that's a big factor when determining regular season wins. In 2000, we won 67 games and then got the title against Indiana. The next two seasons we only won 56 & 58 games, and yet still got it done in the postseason. In 2009, we won 65, and that dropped to 57 last year.
I just think it's hard (and probably counterproductive) for a team to go balls out for 82 games when they've come off of a title. It's very possible that their Give-A-s**t-O-Meter is pretty low in November & December.
This squad is easily more talented than the two previous teams though. My biggest worry is Kobe's health/regression, because he's still the sun that everyone else orbits around.
To be fair, the 57 wins were enough to win the West, and the Lakers coasted a bit after building up a pretty big conference lead.
Also the Lakers ran into serious health issues last season and they were spread out throughout the season:
1. Kobe with the finger, ankle (which actually caused him to miss games) and then the knee.
2. Pau with two missed stretches thanks to his hamstrings.
3. Ron with his "fall" and concussion.
4. Drew with yet another injury (strained Achilles tendon) later in the season.
Basically, if 4 out of 5 starters miss significant time and you still win 57 and the conference...I'd say you did damn well. That being said, Kobe singlehandledly won at least 7 of those games with his clutch play. (And 7 games was the difference between the 1st and the 8th seed in the West).
Fully healthy, I think the Lakers would have won 65 plus games last year at teh very least.
thats coming from 2 guys who dont like baseball so thats why yall 2 come out with those ridiculous statements
