Talk about the upcoming series between the Lakers and Warriors.
Before we get down to business, let's digress a little further.
Remember that after the Lakers took the lead in advancing to the second round, the two questions that fans and friends asked me the most was: Who is better for the Warriors and Kings to play the Lakers in the second round? Who is more dominant among the Warriors playing the Lakers?
The two answers I gave were warriors.
The first question is that since the Warriors have already advanced, let's not talk about it. Let's talk about the second question.
In fact, I don't think it's hard to see that the second round of Warriors is an advantage - my entire article will be discussed around this matter, and I think after reading the article, you can also feel a little bit of why so many people think that the Warriors are superior.
However, I want to emphasize another point: the Warriors advantage does not mean that the Lakers do not have a chance to win.
The Warriors have the advantage of the Warriors, but the Lakers also have the advantage of the Lakers.
The series is never won by either side that has the upper hand in theory - each series has a lot of game points, winners and losers, and X-factors, especially this series.
Now the outside world is very loud to look down on the Lakers, especially many Warriors fans seem to be bursting with confidence, claiming that they will win the Lakers, or even "burst" the Lakers - in my opinion, these remarks do not need to be cared about - this is just because the Warriors have just climbed back from the cliff, and fans need some words that seem "firm" or even "extreme" enough to restore confidence in order to get rid of that sense of despair.
Look at what the players are saying — like Dreamcatch, Curry and Kerr — and the players' words are more indicative of the true outlook of the series:
"It's going to be a huge test."
This is true for both the Warriors and the Lakers.
Next we move on to the main text.
Advantages and disadvantages
The two teams of the Warriors and Lakers have many advantages and disadvantages that can be discussed:
From the perspective of counterpoint difficulty, the trio of Curry, Thompson, and Wiggins is difficult for the Lakers to solve, while Davis and the deputy attackers on the Lakers' side are also difficult to solve;
In terms of offensive style, the Warriors' outside projection is superior; And the Lakers' interior offense and lethality are superior;
From the perspective of roster structure, the Warriors can discharge the space lineup that the Lakers hate; And the Lakers can also get rid of the multi-ball point lineup that the Warriors hate.
If the first round of the showdown against the Grizzlies is the Admiralty Hood vs. the Iron Shirt - it is a hard-hitting [advantage hedge]; Then the Brave Lake duel is more like the eighteen palms of the dragon descending against the six-vein divine sword - [each has its own strengths] depends on who can better play their advantages.
So what are the fundamental advantages of the two teams?
My personal opinion, fundamentally: The strength of the Warriors is the strength of their starting lineup, especially the finishing lineup; And the Lakers' advantage is their depth.
This is what I think is the most appropriate expression after carefully considering the strengths and weaknesses of the two teams.
Let's analyze this sentence in detail.
Attack and defense
Let's start with how the Lakers vs the Warriors.
Defensive strategy
In the first round, the Los Angeles Lakers were the league's most efficient team in defensive efficiency, but there was no point in asking for a sword — frankly, the Lakers were not good on the defensive end in the second round.
In the first round, the Lakers pushed Morant inside through Vanderbilt and forced Bane to limit the Grizzlies' offense. But the second-round Warriors and Grizzlies are very different.
First, Curry and Thompson's range and shooting quality are far above Morant and Bane — meaning the Lakers' first-round defensive strategy is basically invalid.
I don't know if you've noticed that Vanderbilt and Reeves aren't that good at squeezing through cover.
Vanderbilt was limited by being too tall, Reeves by absolute talent (not moving fast enough). When encountering very solid cover, these two people will be more or less always blocked - it's just that they are very tenacious in chasing after taking cover, as long as the other party does not strike as soon as possible after borrowing cover, they will quickly return to their positions and interfere from behind.
That is to say, the way the Lakers defend to block or cover without the ball and cover by hand: chase from behind, and then drive people in front of Davis.
And if that doesn't work, the only way to do this is to take a strong delay — Davis grabs to interfere with the shot, but conversely, the inside frame and defense of the weak bottom corner will drop.
The Memphis Grizzlies took advantage of this feature, and in the last three games Desmond Bane took charge, G4 cornered the Lakers, won G5, and G6 finally lost in the bottom corner and could not respond to the Lakers' defensive counterattack.
Now, the Lakers face the conundrum is that they have two Banes in the second round, and one of them is a super enhanced version of Bane.
This means that the Lakers G7's "ultimate strategy" is strongly delayed, and this round is likely to need to be used as a regular strategy.
They may not do it at G1, but it is a gamble - bet on how Curry and Thompson feel, bet on winning the series and take the initiative; If you lose the bet, you can only accept the price of an unfavorable start. (And this is also related to their own offense)
My opinion is that the strategy of strong delays is inevitable in this series – no later than G3, and possibly as early as the second half of G1.
Are the Lakers afraid to change the way they defend?
Afraid and not afraid.
The reason for the fear, of course, is that they have been guarding for a season, and they may have become accustomed to having Davis guarding under the basket, and Davis may be leaving the basket for the next full series of the next series, which is of course a risk (the frame will go down, and the rebounds may not be as secure).
The reason for not being afraid is that LeBron handed over a completely different frame performance in the playoffs than in the regular season - shrink back to top Rooney? In the case that Davis will also recover quickly, there should be less of a problem. And as long as the Warriors are not Curry and Thompson are scoring, it is relatively acceptable to let others shoot, especially weak three-point shots.
This can only be seen on the playing field. (The Lakers' possible strategies also include pockets and even defense changes, such as 1, 4 cover for defense, 2, 4 cover for defense is likely to always appear.) ）
The defensive strategy is finished. Talk about defensive alignment.
Defensive alignment
The problem of defensive strategy is actually fundamentally about defensive alignment.
The Lakers are not good against the Warriors. Especially it's not good to start against the Warriors' unparalleled set of playoffs.
In my opinion, no set of alignment for the Lakers in this series is absolutely fixed.
Davis is relatively fixed - he normally goes to Rooney, but the Warriors also have the style of Rooney standing high and Green standing low - I'm thinking about whether AD should get rid of the fixed person-staring position, but instead retreat directly to the low position, and the Warriors will face whoever is in the low position?
It's also possible, right?
(In this way, in theory, AD can always stay inside, taking advantage of the Warriors' problem of having two non-shooting points, and with him on the inside, whether it is Green or Rooney as a high cover, it is more convenient for the Lakers to delay and change defenses in the 3rd and 4th positions)
Since Davis is not completely fixed, LeBron is not necessarily completely fixed - conventionally, of course, he is to Green, Davis is to Rooney. But since James can go to the top 3J in the first round, then this round he and Davis can also swap defenses in the 4th and 5th positions - as mentioned above, the one Davis defends in the low post, James goes to the other one.
If it is Rooney, it means that Rooney is standing high, and LeBron delays or changes defenses and hands the inside to Davis (requiring the Lakers' defenders to consciously cut off the passing route); If it's against Green, James can let Green go for a sweep — a more conventional way of alignment.
The Lakers' more uncertain counterpoint lies in positions 1-3.
Normally, the Lakers have a set of counterpoint logic: Vanderbilt leads the opposing snakehead, Reeves takes the second offensive point, and Russell hides on the weak side.
But this logic may be problematic against the Warriors - as mentioned above, Vanderbilt eats cover, Curry is not a regular ball-carrying attacker, he has one of the longest running distances in the league per game, and he has to borrow countless off-ball cover and hand-to-hand cover.
Vanderbilt chased him, whether he can catch up is a question, and how long he can chase is another question (physical exertion).
And against Curry, there is another extended question: Who is Reeves to? Who is Russell to?
The trouble with the Warriors is that Nos. 1, 2, and 3 all have strong offensive abilities, and Nos. 2 and Nos. 3 are quite large.
Reeves vs. Klay Thompson, body size is fine, but in this way Russell is going to play Wiggins, which is a set of counterpoints with huge differences in size and athleticism - although the mouth brother's 18 points are basically thunderous, but Russell is right, it is likely to be more than 18 points.
And Reeves goes to Wiggins, Russell goes to Klay, then the 2nd and 3rd positions have hidden dangers - Wiggins has a size advantage over Reeves, and Russell is also quite risky to Klay - unlike Dillon in the first round, Clay is a mobile cannon and one of the best mobile catcher shooters in history, and it is doubtful how far Russell can chase him.
The Lakers' regular outside alignment logic against the Warriors, no matter how you choose, looks like two glasses of poison.
Moreover, they also lack the possibility of adjustment - as long as Russell is present, it is difficult to hide his loophole.
Unless the Lakers take Russell as they suggested in the first round, they take Russell as they started and Schroder in the starting lineup — then Schroder chasing Curry, Reeves chasing Klay, Vanderbilt vs. Wiggins, seems much more reasonable.
But we also need to know — Russell just made a career playoff masterpiece, and his position is there, and the Lakers have just expressed their intention to renew their contract — and I'm really not optimistic that the Lakers will be able to make adjustments like Russell as soon as they start.
So we may have to face the fact that in the second round, the Lakers' defensive efficiency will not be as good as they were in the first round, and even the individual games may be quite poor.
The only good news may be that the Warriors' starting lineup won't be on the court all the time, and Russell won't be on the court all the time.
When the Warriors replaced Peyton Jr., DiVincenzo, and Kuming's family, the Lakers' opportunity came - and how to arrange the rotation reasonably and play this "time difference" is an important game point for the coaching staff of the two teams in this series.
Next, let's talk about the Warriors' counterpoint.
Compared to the Lakers, the Warriors' starting lineup is more fixed.
Rooney is certain to Davis; Dream Green will probably go to Vanderbilt - so that he can empty Vanderbial to maximize his defense ability.
Wiggins will go against James, which could be the biggest X-factor of the series. (It is also possible that he will go to the opposite Russell at some time)
The rest of Curry vs. Russell, Klay vs. Reeves are also relatively neat pairs.
The Warriors' alignment is better than neatness — but neatness doesn't necessarily mean good defensive results.
In the first round of the playoffs, the Lakers' positional offensive effect was poor, but in the second round, they may not be so bad.
The Grizzlies can limit the Lakers' positional offense in the first round, and the ability of 3J and Tillman to change defenses, as well as the strength of the assistant defense is the biggest reason - and the Warriors' No. 5 Rooney, although he has a certain ability to defend small, still has a certain gap compared with 3J and Tillman. (They may not dare to adopt a defense change strategy, and even if they take a change of defense, it may not have the effect of a grizzly bear)
Reeves and Russell are both players with relatively strong shooting ability, and the Warriors may be punished if they choose to sink and let them shoot, and if they delay, Russell and Reeves are not bad at the ball, and once Davis receives the ball in the next step, the Warriors can only block through fouls.
And the Lakers through Davis main attack is also a good choice, the last regular season meeting, Davis in the case of Green Rooney, beat the Warriors with 39 points - that game, the Lakers positional battle is often directly handed over to AD from the high position to launch an attack, Rooney in the case of one-on-one AD defensive performance is not good.
At the same time, the Lakers also have LeBron's "hidden weapon" - in the first round, LeBron played most of the time without the ball, and now he is used to cutting in and covering the downward offensive style, which will help him a little in his confrontation with Wiggins; Similarly, even if Wiggins can cause some trouble for LeBron on one, LeBron and Davis' blocking and small "roll call" tactics can still pose a threat to the Warriors.
And the most critical point is not in positional warfare, but in switching attacks.
The Golden State Warriors are the team that shoots the most three-pointers in the league; They are also one of the teams with the most turnovers in the league.
These two characteristics may turn into the Lakers' victory at any time.
Curry Thompson is terrible, but in the first round of the series, the Warriors' overall shooting performance was not good - the team's three-point shooting rate was only 32,8%, especially Poole, Wiggins, DiVincenzo, and Payton Jr. could not shoot three-pointers, which greatly limited the Warriors' rotation.
A big reason behind the three games they lost was that the Warriors averaged 17.6 turnovers per game in those three games.
In the second round, the feel of the Warriors' role players and their ability to control mistakes will likely determine the direction of the series — if they can't shoot those weak-side three-pointers that serve as "response shots," then the Lakers will be much easier both defensively and offensively — and even more so for mistakes.
All in all, the Warriors defended the Lakers, although the alignment is neat, but in fact the test is not small - the Lakers have many backcourt attack points, offensive points (so that Wiggins cannot lead the opposite backcourt like the first round), and there are absolute advantages inside - this series may even be a test of the Warriors' defensive end than last year's Finals (or even greater than all of the Warriors' last series).
Offensive and defensive interpretation
After we listed the strengths and weaknesses of the two teams, I wonder if everyone feels the same way as I do:
Although the two teams have a swing, one against the other, it seems that the Lakers have a bigger problem. But if you take into account the offensive and defensive strategy and the depth of rotation, the Warriors face a lot of tests.
The Warriors' weakness is in the backcourt defense, while the Lakers have enough backcourt offensive points;
The Warriors' offensive pass cutting system, but the Lakers' defensive discipline and defensive flexibility are not bad;
The Warriors are the fastest-paced and most rounded team in the league, and this style is equally beneficial to the Lakers;
An important problem for the Warriors is that there is no backup center inside, and the Lakers happen to be the most lethal team in the league;
In fact, the Warriors' advantage is heaven-breaking - that is, Curry, Thompson, Wiggins - and even the extreme point we say: the Warriors' advantage lies in Curry's "misalignment" of Russell.
The Lakers' advantage is related to their depth: their bench can almost "seamlessly" with the starters, and they are both offensive and defensive, and can play a variety of different lineup combinations as needed - of the ten lineups commonly used in the Lakers playoffs, 7 have a positive net score, while the Warriors have only 3.
Curry, Klay, Wiggins, Green, Rooney, this "champion five" is really powerful - 31.5 points in the league in 100 rounds; 22.1 points in 100 rounds in the regular season, more than 92% of the league's lineup.
However, no matter how good this lineup is, it is not 48 minutes on the field - even, if the BR data is correct, this lineup averages less than 10 minutes per game.
And as long as you hold on for these 10-15 minutes, the Lakers have a chance - if the defensive end is destined to be inferior, you might as well focus on their offense and the execution of those details:
Russell, AD, LeBron, the Lakers' "Big Three" all need to perform better on the offensive end than in the first round;
Role players need to make that damn open three-point shot (25% three-point shooting can't beat the Warriors);
They also need to continue to protect rebounds, continue to control turnovers, and make more targeted selections.
Believe that "strengths and weaknesses" are only part of the game, and the execution, concentration, desire to win, and unity of the game are just as important as "strengths and weaknesses" - what the Lakers need is to focus on themselves, do their job well, and play their own basketball style.
The Warriors are good, but the Lakers aren't necessarily worse than them.
Series final prediction: 55 open, Lakers advance.