Basketball fans are surely in a dour mood today. The announcement that the NBA lockout was officially upon us was decidedly unsurprising and yet no less depressing for the extended notice. I’d wager to say that I’m not alone in holding a bleak outlook for the prospects of an agreement being in place before the scheduled start of the season. Both sides are digging in hard and there is little impetus to negotiate further, at least on the owners side, until the ramifications of the work stoppage hit home (see: missed paychecks). But for the Los Angeles Lakers maybe a shortened 2012 campaign wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. Yeah, you’re skeptical, but hear me out.
L.A. ended the 2011 season on a bitter note. They looked tired, uninspired and a basically a shadow of the team that displayed poise and grit in winning back to back championships the previous two years. But if it was fatigue, both mental and physical, that did them in then wouldn’t a prolonged absence actually serve them well in hopes of returning to the promised land?
In the lockout shortened season of 1998-’99 there were only fifty games on the schedule. There was a three game preseason, no All-Star game and the Spurs won a championship that Phil Jackson later qualified as needing an ‘asterisk’ in the record books. But what would a fifty game schedule mean to the 2012 Lakers? Consider a few key facts about this squad (assuming of course that there are no major alterations once the lockout finally ends).
Next Page: So You’re Saying the Lockout is a Good Thing?
For one thing Kobe Bryant isn’t getting any younger. No one doubts that he’ll be training his butt off during the down time in preparation for whatever the 2012 season holds but there is a vast difference between pushing yourself in workouts and the relentless grind of the regular season. I submit a lockout might lengthen his career and increase his effectiveness in the postseason of the coming year.
Then of course there is Andrew Bynum. Anything that decreases the chances Bynum will be injured for the playoffs has to be a positive for Lakers fans and with potentially thirty two less games for him to tweak or twist or bruise his knee, there is a much higher likelihood that ‘Drew would be available and thriving by the time a fifty game schedule concluded.
Likewise, Bynum’s running mate in the frontcourt Pau Gasol looked like he wouldn’t mind an extended vacation. Gasol admitted being exhausted by the toll of the everything leading up to the playoffs last season. Whether it was all the games over the past three years or the rumors whirling around his personal life something was off about him. Frankly, I think Gasol could use the time off as well.
Finally I submit this: The Lakers peaked last season at precisely the time that the playoffs would be in full gear if the docket held fifty games instead of eighty two. In fact if the Lakers go on a 17-1 run at the same point in the schedule as 2011 you might as well pencil them as the champs. Right?
Ok, I know, maybe I’m stretching here to find the silver lining. Maybe I’m ignoring the downside. The Lakers have a new coach with a new system and a new philosophy. Even if they don’t add any fresh players into the mix there is still going to be a adjustment period and with the prospect of an abbreviated training camp and preseason this ‘getting to know each other’ phase could well spill into the regular season.
More than that I’m pretty sure there isn’t a fan alive who really wants to see thirty two games (or an entire season for that matter) go down the drain just because it might make his team marginally more likely to win the championship, but cut me some slack. These are dark days for the NBA and any reason to be positive is a good one in my book. So if you’re a Lakers fan then take heart. There are sure to be many months ahead of stalemates and public bickering and posturing. But perhaps if the Lakers win the title in a shortened season we might look back and realize that the lockout was actually a blessing in disguise for them. And believe me, asterisk or not, we’d take it.