The Los Angeles Lakers‘ recent loss to the Pacers is a welcome “development”.  The Lakers needed to know that no matter how good their team is, any NBA team is capable of coming back and winning the game. Note that I said the Lakers are a good team.  You guessed it right, no great team ever lets a mediocre team like the Pacers come back and win the game.

If the Pacers came from behind on this game, the Lakers‘ nemesis, the Boston Celtics, are even more capable.  Flashback of game 5 of the June 2008 NBA Finals is playing through my mind right now.

The Lakers need to understand that a game is not won until the final buzzer sounds.

»»» «««

It looks like Andrew Bynum is becoming a “man”.  He now questions Phil Jackson‘s substitution strategy.  Andrew, Andrew, Andrew, I really like your game (so far) but I think you’re wrong to question Phil.

In my opinion, second units are there to primarily relieve the starters and to somehow change the pace of the game in hopes of catching the opponent off balance.  It was fair for Phil to bring back the starters because, even though the second unit increased the lead to 16, Indiana started to come back and cut the lead to 8.

I’m not saying that Phil made the right decision… but I’m saying that he didn’t make the wrong one.

If you take a look at the play of the second unit, their pace is frenetic and very risky.  Yes, they increase the lead (and even take the lead sometimes!) but generally they can only do it for a limited time because, for one, when you run like that you eventually get tired and commit turnovers.  We are only human after all.

You really have to pity the coaches.  No matter how great they are, some NBA player will always question their intelligence.