David Halberstam, a Pulitzer prize-winning author who wrote 'Playing for Keeps: Michael Jordan and the World He Made' was on the Jim Rome radio show today and talked about the Lakers team. For those interested in hearing the interview, check out the Jungle in windows media. The interview is at the 1 hour mark.
For those who like to read, check out Halberstam's column on ESPN.com
Here are some excerpts:
"A number of things, however, were noticeable in that season. Jackson had already improved Shaq's game. He seemed to have a much better sense of the game, and to be playing with far greater discipline, with very little waste, save perhaps his free throws. The spacing of the Lakers on offense was an obvious improvement, and worked to Shaq's advantage. The triangle offense got him the ball where he wanted it, and showed him to advantage as a passer. His assists more than doubled from 114 to 299.
Kobe Bryant looked impressive too. His defense was vastly improved, and that had been a serious question hanging over him. Unlike Michael Jordan, he did not have three years at a place like Chapel Hill to learn to play defense under the best coaches in the country, and it is hard to improve on defense once you're in the NBA and making millions of dollars and appearing on highlight clips every night. But in the 1999-2000 season, at age of 21, Kobe made all-defensive first team; Michael, because the comparisons are inevitable and are helpful in tracking Kobe's surprising maturity as a professional player, made it in his fourth season, at the age of 25."
"The sum of what they are doing is awesome. Portland, with perhaps more genuine talent than Los Angeles, two deep at every position, is disorganized, the roles are never quite certain, and it readily self-destructs. A wonderful Sacramento team, one that is a sheer pleasure to watch, cannot win a game. Then San Antonio disappears in the final two games of a four-game set. All of this leaves the rest of the league wondering: Who can beat the Lakers if they continue to play at this level and no one is injured. They are, after all, very young. Are we talking embryonic dynasty?
Let us, before passing on, look then at the three principals in this.
First Shaq. He is playing at a level that sets him apart from other contemporary players. He made the immensely gifted Tim Duncan look less like one of the more dominating big men in the league than an agile small forward in those four games. He wastes little energy, has a rare combination of awesome muscle and power and yet a surprisingly soft shot. No one has ever been bigger, stronger, and more agile. If his footwork was missing before, or if the offenses he played in did not display it properly, then it is clearly there for all to see now. His moves to the basket are ferocious -- he is so big and so quick that it is almost impossible to stop him. He is, as Doug Collins noted, probably the hardest player to referee in the league, because he is so big and quick-- is he fouling on his moves to the basket or is he being fouled, or is it always a combination of both?
He physically wears down opposing centers. The Lakers, not surprisingly always seem fresher in the fourth quarter than their opponents. The only comparison in terms of a big man dominating the game is with Wilt Chamberlain. But Shaq seems infinitely more comfortable with his size and with playing the role of Goliath than Wilt. Chamberlain's signature shot was essentially a fallaway; Shaq, by contrast, attacks the basket with a certain violence on almost every move.
He tends to get up for big games and for the playoffs; it is possible that he lacks challenges in the regular season and tends to take it somewhat for granted. If that is true, then it is possible that his signature now will be that he plays at a significantly higher level of concentration and effort in the playoffs. If so, heaven help the rest of the NBA.
Kobe. Some seven years ago, relatively early in his championship run, I wrote an article on Michael Jordan for Sports Illustrated, and I talked with Phil Jackson about the progression of players who preceded Michael in playing above the rim. We spoke of their constantly expanding range of abilities -- Elgin Baylor, Connie Hawkins, Julius Erving, and finally Michael. The wonderful thing about all that lineage, Phil said, is that it makes you wonder about who the next in line will be, and what even better moves he will make.
It is quite possible that he is now coaching the next in line of prototypes. Kobe, it should be noted, is not the next Michael Jordan -- the Michael Jordan commercial phenomenon was something of a fluke. But he may be something just as good, the first Kobe Bryant. There are differences in their games: Michael was simply more muscular and more powerful in his drives to the basket. He punished defenders in the process. If Kobe punishes them it is more likely psychological than physical -- he is slimmer than Michael, and if he lacks the pure force of an attacking Jordan, then there is a degree of flex, and an ability to create angles and lanes on the way to the basket that did not seem to exist before he invented them, lanes and angles even Michael might have lacked.
Kobe also has, I think, a better jump shot this early in his career than Michael had at a comparable moment in his. Keep in mind their actuarial tables: Michael had played one full professional season when he was 22; at the same age Kobe has completed five, and his game has become more complete in each one.
finally, Halberstam concludes,
"As I write, Milwaukee and Philadelphia are struggling for the dubious right to meet Los Angeles in the finals. I realize that the great thing in all sports is that the games actually have to be played, that it doesn't matter who looks overpowering on paper, but this may be the year that proves Yogi Berra wrong -- it may be over before it's over."
In the radio interview, he suggests that Milwaukee and Philly combined couldn't beat the Lakers.
Halberstam is smart. Philly fans aren't. 😛
For those who like to read, check out Halberstam's column on ESPN.com
Here are some excerpts:
"A number of things, however, were noticeable in that season. Jackson had already improved Shaq's game. He seemed to have a much better sense of the game, and to be playing with far greater discipline, with very little waste, save perhaps his free throws. The spacing of the Lakers on offense was an obvious improvement, and worked to Shaq's advantage. The triangle offense got him the ball where he wanted it, and showed him to advantage as a passer. His assists more than doubled from 114 to 299.
Kobe Bryant looked impressive too. His defense was vastly improved, and that had been a serious question hanging over him. Unlike Michael Jordan, he did not have three years at a place like Chapel Hill to learn to play defense under the best coaches in the country, and it is hard to improve on defense once you're in the NBA and making millions of dollars and appearing on highlight clips every night. But in the 1999-2000 season, at age of 21, Kobe made all-defensive first team; Michael, because the comparisons are inevitable and are helpful in tracking Kobe's surprising maturity as a professional player, made it in his fourth season, at the age of 25."
"The sum of what they are doing is awesome. Portland, with perhaps more genuine talent than Los Angeles, two deep at every position, is disorganized, the roles are never quite certain, and it readily self-destructs. A wonderful Sacramento team, one that is a sheer pleasure to watch, cannot win a game. Then San Antonio disappears in the final two games of a four-game set. All of this leaves the rest of the league wondering: Who can beat the Lakers if they continue to play at this level and no one is injured. They are, after all, very young. Are we talking embryonic dynasty?
Let us, before passing on, look then at the three principals in this.
First Shaq. He is playing at a level that sets him apart from other contemporary players. He made the immensely gifted Tim Duncan look less like one of the more dominating big men in the league than an agile small forward in those four games. He wastes little energy, has a rare combination of awesome muscle and power and yet a surprisingly soft shot. No one has ever been bigger, stronger, and more agile. If his footwork was missing before, or if the offenses he played in did not display it properly, then it is clearly there for all to see now. His moves to the basket are ferocious -- he is so big and so quick that it is almost impossible to stop him. He is, as Doug Collins noted, probably the hardest player to referee in the league, because he is so big and quick-- is he fouling on his moves to the basket or is he being fouled, or is it always a combination of both?
He physically wears down opposing centers. The Lakers, not surprisingly always seem fresher in the fourth quarter than their opponents. The only comparison in terms of a big man dominating the game is with Wilt Chamberlain. But Shaq seems infinitely more comfortable with his size and with playing the role of Goliath than Wilt. Chamberlain's signature shot was essentially a fallaway; Shaq, by contrast, attacks the basket with a certain violence on almost every move.
He tends to get up for big games and for the playoffs; it is possible that he lacks challenges in the regular season and tends to take it somewhat for granted. If that is true, then it is possible that his signature now will be that he plays at a significantly higher level of concentration and effort in the playoffs. If so, heaven help the rest of the NBA.
Kobe. Some seven years ago, relatively early in his championship run, I wrote an article on Michael Jordan for Sports Illustrated, and I talked with Phil Jackson about the progression of players who preceded Michael in playing above the rim. We spoke of their constantly expanding range of abilities -- Elgin Baylor, Connie Hawkins, Julius Erving, and finally Michael. The wonderful thing about all that lineage, Phil said, is that it makes you wonder about who the next in line will be, and what even better moves he will make.
It is quite possible that he is now coaching the next in line of prototypes. Kobe, it should be noted, is not the next Michael Jordan -- the Michael Jordan commercial phenomenon was something of a fluke. But he may be something just as good, the first Kobe Bryant. There are differences in their games: Michael was simply more muscular and more powerful in his drives to the basket. He punished defenders in the process. If Kobe punishes them it is more likely psychological than physical -- he is slimmer than Michael, and if he lacks the pure force of an attacking Jordan, then there is a degree of flex, and an ability to create angles and lanes on the way to the basket that did not seem to exist before he invented them, lanes and angles even Michael might have lacked.
Kobe also has, I think, a better jump shot this early in his career than Michael had at a comparable moment in his. Keep in mind their actuarial tables: Michael had played one full professional season when he was 22; at the same age Kobe has completed five, and his game has become more complete in each one.
finally, Halberstam concludes,
"As I write, Milwaukee and Philadelphia are struggling for the dubious right to meet Los Angeles in the finals. I realize that the great thing in all sports is that the games actually have to be played, that it doesn't matter who looks overpowering on paper, but this may be the year that proves Yogi Berra wrong -- it may be over before it's over."
In the radio interview, he suggests that Milwaukee and Philly combined couldn't beat the Lakers.
Halberstam is smart. Philly fans aren't. 😛
