Those who blame Kobe are missing the big picture

Whitlock makes the point that Kobe “emasculates his big men. Andrew Bynum politely admitted this week that Kobe stunted his growth.”

Any columnist who relies on the insights of Andrew Bynum needs a rest more than I do. Andrew Bynum stunted his own growth more than anyone else.

Whitlock writes, “I blame Kobe. He’s the guy stopping Howard from eating.’’

T.J. Simers
Bio | E-mail | Recent columns
Also
Pau Gasol isn't the Lakers' problem, he's part of the solution

I haven’t seen Whitlock at a Lakers game this season. I haven’t been to all of them so maybe we just keeping missing each other. That’s too bad, I like arguing with him.

But I wonder if he’s talked to Howard. I had lunch with Howard last week and he said Kobe is the one who has been yelling at him to shoot more jump shots. That’s jump shots.

He said Kobe has been working with him on being more aggressive and less sensitive to criticism.

Maybe they both won’t co-exist in the long run, but to make the assertion now that Kobe is holding Howard back is just inaccurate.

And to suggest the “Lakers’ problems stem from Kobe” as the ESPN headline with Broussard’s story suggested, is a misplaced cheap shot.

I’m all for pounding Kobe when he gives good reason to do so.

But darn if I can find a reason this season.

t.j.simers@latimes.com

Comments (26)

Add / View comments | Discussion FAQ

lafanatic2 at 9:04 AM December 25, 2012

T.J, I honestly thought you knew more about basketball than one would guess you do by reading this article. You see, when one player is dominating the ball as much as Kobe does, it affects morale, and hinders the flow of the offense, especially D'Antoni's offense, which is predicated upon ball and player movement.

Kobe's efficiency has also been dropping since the season began, culminating in an atrocious 16-41 showing last night, in a game where his team came back in the fourth quarter with him on the bench.

Kobe's team would be better off without him. The offense would run more smoothly and effectively, the defense would be more consistent on the perimeter, and Howard and Gasol could actually play together the way they are meant to.

As it stands now, everything revolves around Kobe's ego, and that, my friends, is a recipe for disaster. With no Phil around to keep that ego in check, a first or 2nd round playoff exit is nearly a surety...that is, if they make the playoffs with Kobe's shotjacking ways.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/21/5071116/tj-simers-think-kobes-the-problem.html#comment-746126141#storylink=cpy

aloistmartin at 10:44 AM December 22, 2012

Snobbing KCAL`S "Worthy Spin" may have been Baby Doc`s Worst Nightmare :)

Soon the Lakers will join Wrigley Field, The Olympic Auditorium, The Rams, ( The Kings ? )

Frank McCourt, and the Angels, in L.A. Sports Anonymity !

SmallBizCEOInLA at 10:26 PM December 21, 2012

Oh, no, agreeingb with TJ Simers! Next thing you know, I'll think Ann Coulter said something rational.

I've never been a fan of Kobe Bryant, but he's right. If the Lakers had had Gasol and Nash through this period, and Kobe had put up as many shots, I might say the critics have a point. But Dwight Howard can't carry the offense.

Relevant stats:

1. Other than Dwight Howard, no one on the team has a field-goal percentage as high as Bryant.

2. Getting fouled: Bryant makes 86.6% of his free throws; Howard 51%. Haq-a-Howard is a viable defense down the stretch for opponents. Haq-a-Kobe is a losing strategy.

3. Bryant's 3-point percentage is 38%. A 33% 3-point field goal percentage is mathematically equivalent to a 50% percentage from the rest of the floor.

That is, when it comes to points per shot, (factoring in made free throws and 3-point baskets). Bryant is significantly outperforming even Dwight Howard per shot taken.

4. Go-to. Who else do you go to when the game is on the line? It was (and might be again) Nash and Gasol at times. Expecting 2 points from Dwight Howard is iffy because of his free-throw percentage.

What is really wrong with the Lakers is two things: (1) completely screwed-up team chemistry without Nash and Gasol and (2) age. They need a Matt Barnes. But (Hooray!) last time I checked, Matt Barnes was a key part of that excellent Clippers second unit.

Comments are filtered for language and registration is required. The Times makes no guarantee of comments' factual accuracy. Readers may report inappropriate comments by clicking the Report Abuse link next to a comment. Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.