Let me start by first disclosing that I would consider myself a Lakers fan. Definitely.

Today is Friday, April 10, 2009. The Lakers are in Portland waiting to play the Blazers this evening. The last time the Lakers visited Portland was March 9, 2009, where the Blazers spanked them by 17 points, and the game wasn't as close as the score would lead you to believe. In case you are tempted to blame that loss on the absence of Andrew Bynum, the Lakers have lost in the Rose Garden 7 straight times now. In fact, the last time the Lakers won in Portland was February 23, 2005.

And this time the Lakers will attempt to win in Portland without hall of fame coach Phil Jackson, who didn't make the trip due to pain and swelling in Jackson's leg is caused by plantar fasciitis.

I'm sure most people favor the Lakers to win this time, but you shouldn't sleep on the Blazers. Not only are they just a half a game behind 3rd seeded Houston, but all season the Trailblazers have played a half court, defensive style that tends to do well for teams in the playoffs.

But this article isn't about the Blazers, it is about the Lakers.

The TrueHoop Stat Geek Smackdown has been won the last two years by Justin Kubatko of Basketball-Reference.com for correctly predicting the outcome of the playoffs. He uses a computer to simulate games based on regular season statistics and runs the simulation 1,000 times. Again, Justin Kubatko has accurately predicted the 2007 and 2008 playoffs and...

This year, he puts the probability of the Lakers winning the Finals at 23.4 percent.

The probability of the Celtics winning the Finals is 19.3 percent.

The probability of the Cavaliers winning the Finals is 33.4 percent.

I don't do predictions as a policy: I think it is pointless, immature and people who do make predictions are prone to tilt their analysis to favor what they've already declared in their predictions, and I like to be objective in my analysis. Besides, I don't have the chops for it that Justin has and I can read his stuff on basketball-reference.com.

But last year I did some research and wrote an article entitled, Does Defense Really Win Championships? and found that, in the last 14 years, whenever it came down to the last two teams, the team with the better regular season defense has one the NBA Finals every time except for 3, and one of those 3 times is skewed because of injuries to major players during the regular season.

In fact, in the last 28 years (which is all I wanted to research back to), except for 2 teams with extraordinary regular season injuries, the NBA Champion was always in the top 10 defensively. And in 14 of those 28 years, the NBA Champion was in the top 5 defensively.

After I wrote that article, the Celtics went on to beat the favored Lakers in the NBA Finals, making it the 15th year that the better defensive team won it all, and the 29th year of NBA championships coming from the top 10 defenders in the regular season, and the 15th time out of the 29 that the Champion was in the top 5 defensively.

So how do the big 3 look in terms of defense in the regular season this year?

#1 = Cleveland
#2 = Boston
#16 = Lakers

Of the Lakers 16 losses so far this year, 5 of them came from teams that won't even make the playoffs. I call that defensive A.D.D. (attention deficit disorder). Here are the Lakers most recent losses, the ones in the month of March:

31 Mar 09 - Charlotte (for the 2nd time this season)
29 Mar 09 - Atlanta
19 Mar 09 - Golden State
17 Mar 09 - Philadelphia
09 Mar 09 - Portland
01 Mar 09 - Phoenix

Do any of those opponents strike fear into the hearts of the league?

How could the Lakers beat Boston and Cleveland every time this year and yet fail to close these lesser teams out and assure their home court advantage in the Finals?

Additionally, even when the Lakers win they've struggled to beat lesser teams, often requiring extraordinary 4th quarter efforts to win. The most recent examples include Sacramento on April 7, the Clippers on April 5, Milwaukee on April 1, Golden State on March 19, etc.

In short, the Lakers' on and off commitment to defense this year puts the odds against their winning an NBA championship in 2009.

However, over the course of the regular season the Lakers have shown they can certainly defend when they make up their minds to. Out of the 16 losses they have so far this year, none of them were to the Cleveland Caveliers or the Boston Celtics, their two most probable opponents should the Lakers make it to the Finals. For instance, the Lakers held Boston to 83 points Christmas day 2008, and Cleveland to 88 points on January 29, 2009.

The trouble is, of the Lakers 16 losses, 5 of them were to teams that didn't even make the playoffs this year. If teams that didn't even make the playoffs can upset the mighty Lakers, whose to say teams that did make the playoffs couldn't steal a game in Los Angeles, taking home court advantage and making the Lakers job much more difficult.

Can the Lakers overcome their defensive A.D.D. and defend for 16 to 28 games in a row to win a championship?

That remains to be seen, but they didn't put together 16 games of great defense in a row during the regular season, as evidenced by their current ranking of #16 in the league in team defense.

But in addition to the saying that "defense wins championships" is another axiom for playoff basketball: "this is a game of match ups."

For all the buzz about the importance of having home court advantage, we can't lose track of the importance of match ups.

Remember in 2007 when 1st seed Dallas, with 67 wins, the best record in the league and home court advantage throughout the playoffs fell to 8th seed Golden State, the last team to qualify for the playoffs? No one saw that coming but perhaps we should have, seeing as Dallas lost all three of its games to Golden State in the regular season.

And so we arrive at where we started, talking about match ups. Yes, the Blazers give the Lakers fits, however both Cleveland and Boston have lost to the Lakers in all their games this season. In fact, Cleveland's ONLY home loss came at the hands of the Los Angeles Lakers.

So maybe this year we'll be able to see which axiom will prevail. Will it be the defense of the Cavs or the Celtics? Or the match ups of the Lakers?

With starting Lakers Center Andrew Bynum reportedly returning to action today against the #2 seeded Denver Nuggets, what nightmare injury would cause Lakers fans to groan? Kobe Bryant? Pau Gasol?

None other than legendary Lakers head coach, Phil Jackson, is sidelined with an ill timed injury.

The associated press is reporting Phil Jackson will not make the Lakers' road trip to Portland on Friday due to pain and swelling in Jackson's leg is caused by plantar fasciitis.

The Lakers are down playing the injury, saying Jackson shouldn't miss any other games, and maybe it isn't too bad, but then again it is apparently bad enough that he can't make a 2 hour and 15 minute flight on a luxury private jet.

Could that high chair Phil coaches from become a wheel chair?

Before I start, I'd like to propose a new NBA rule: players are NOT to make ANY contact with any player of an opposing team AFTER a whistle has blown.

If there are players that need separating, there are 3 referees and 4 teammates on each side that can do the job, so there is no need for a player to pose as a "peacemaker" by making contact with or restraining an opposing player. As often as not, that just further provokes things.

On November 12, 2008, at the US Airways Center in Phoenix, Arizona, home of the Suns, the visiting Houston Rockets found themselves in this season's first NBA brawl. Here is a very clear YouTube video of the incident.

In brief, Houston point guard, Rafer Alston set a screen for Tracy McGrady at the 3 point arc, and Phoenix Suns 6'7" starting forward, Matt Barnes, gave the 6'2" Rafer Alston, a hard and cheap shot.

Interestingly, at the time Barnes gave Alston the cheap shot, Alston was having a great game and had the best player efficiency (+17) of any player on both teams, and Barnes was having a bad game and had the lowest player efficiency rating of all players on both teams (-17). The Rockets were beating the Suns in Phoenix, and it appears that frustration was a factor in Barnes's hard foul.

After Alston regained his balance, he ran at Barns, but was held up momentarily by an illegal moving screen set by Steve Nash. When Alston did get to Barnes, he did not strike him or push him. Alston just put his face into Barnes's face and they jawed back and forth...

It looked like that was all that was going to happen, teammates were already separating the two when suddenly Steve Nash inexplicably came charging at them, made contact, then flopped to the floor. That DEFINITELY escalated what was just angry words between two players into an all out fracas.

Fortunately for all involved, Ron Artest was on the bench at the time, and stayed put.

The most interesting thing I observed, though, is what the NBA Officials did -- or maybe I should say DID NOT do, and this should be a major concern for the NBA Player's Union.

If you watch the video closely, throughout the whole skirmish, referees James Capers and Tony Brown were in the middle of the fray separating players. However, Referee Greg Willard started to pull Matt Barnes from the fighting, but when Barnes gave referee Willard a shove, Willard backed out of the incident altogether and became a spectator, leaving it to his two coworkers to settle things down 2 on 10.

Speaking of NBA officials doing nothing, here is the REAL problem...

Had the refs called the obvious foul that Barnes gave Alston, the skirmish would not have happened and no one would have been fined or suspended.

Because the foul happened in plain sight on the 3 point arc, and not in the crowded paint, I am assuming the officials saw it and chose not to call it. Besides, the television replays from multiple angles make it clear that you didn't need a special angle to see the foul.

I'm not saying Barnes didn't provoke it with his cheap shot because he did. And I'm not saying Alston should have kept his cool, because he should have.

I'm saying that referees have a tremendous amount of power on the floor. They can call things tight and players adjust, or they can allow contact and let tempers rise.

I've said this before and I hate that I have to write it again, but I don't care who you are, everyone has a point at which they can lose their cool. When we put young athletes in the heat of competition, sometimes with a lot on the line in terms of their careers, franchises and fan base, and then fail keep control of the game, we are setting players up to fail.

Unfortunately, there is that chorus of cretins who always complain to officials to "let them play," but what these dullards can't comprehend is that fouling isn't playing, it is a violation of play. It is an attempt to gain an advantage by breaking the rules of the game... in simple terms, fouling is cheating.

I hope that someday all fans will realize that the best way to keep a game from being stopped so often for free throws isn't to allow contact, it is to be consistent, then teams can once and for all adjust their play and things can flow well.

I have no problem with the fines and suspensions the NBA league office imposed on those involved, but I have a REAL problem that the refs get off scott free for this, because most of the blame is theirs.

If I were Derek Fisher, the head of the NBA Player's Union, I would be sending tapes and a formal complaint to David Stern, and putting my face in front of cameras to tell the world, "Had NBA officials called that obvious foul, fans would not have been disappointed to see their favorite stars suspended."

If refs aren't going to call fouls, why do we even have them? And if the union isn't going to stand up for its players when they are wronged, why have a union?

Derek may be distracted as he focuses on the Lakers' goals, but there is no excuse at all for the new head of NBA Officiating, former Army general, Ronald Johnson.

Hey, General Johnson, stop stealing pay checks and do your job!

Keep an eye on this unfolding story about Cuban using insider information to avoid $750,000 in losses.

According to Forbes Magazine, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is one of the richest people in the world, with a net worth at $2.3 billion as of March 2007. Besides the Mavericks, Cuban owns the HDNet cable television channel, Landmark Theaters, a large national chain, and (ironically) a Web site called Sharesleuth.com, which bills itself as providing "independent Web-based reporting aimed at exposing securities fraud and corporate chicanery."

Considering that Mark Cuban is a celebrity and a high profile billionaire, I'm sure the SEC did its homework twice before filing charges, especially given that the alleged infraction took place June 28, 2004.

If guilty, do you think they'll put Mark Cuban in the same cell with ex-NBA referee, Tim Donahy as part of the punishment for both of them?

If fined, do you think Cuban will continue his tradition of matching the amount he pays in fines with a donations to charity?

Seriously though, this is not a good day for Mark, or for anyone for that matter. And by the way, the SEC charges are in civil court, not criminal. I hope Cuban is innocent. Unfortunately though, the charges are somewhat believable.

I remember when Dirk Nowitzki won the 3-point shootout in Houston in February of 2006, Dirk actually stood on the line and some of his makes should have been disqualified. Had the refs done their jobs, Dirk would not have won, but Cuban didn't complain to the league office that time.

Cuban is an opportunist: Mark Cuban does whatever benefits Mark Cuban's interests, and he has a history of seizing every advantage he can get for himself. Hopefully, he knew better than to do what the SEC thinks he's done.

By the way, again I apologize for being unable to make comments, even on my own blog postings.

I've standardized our offices on Firefox for both Macs and PCs, and Foxsports blogs comments suddenly quit working for Firefox... it appears to be a Javascript problem with their "Add a Comment" link, but I don't know and they aren't helping.

At any rate, I'm sorry but I cannot make comments on Foxsports blogs, including my own, unless I drink the purple kool-aid and apparently downgrade to Internet Explorer.

--- EDITS ---

The Wall Street Journal updated their article from when I originally linked to it, and added more detail.

Cuban and his attorney launched into a vicious public tirade against the SEC, saying among other things that the SEC should be too busy with its bigger problems to worry about Cuban's little $750,000 transaction.

Does that response smell funny to you? Because it sure does to me.

The article also added a quote from Mark Cuban's blog, posted on March 2, 2005, nearly a year after the stock sale.

Mr. Cuban wrote, "the company did a PIPE financing. I'm not going to discuss the good or bad of PIPE financing other than to say that to me its a huge red flag and I don't want to own stock in companies that use this method of financing. Why? Because I don't like the idea of selling in a private placement, stock for less than the market price, and then to make matters worse, pushing the price lower with the issuance of warrants. So I sold the stock."

Obviously, this blog entry is a written confession of guilt. Cuban clearly says that the reason he sold was because of the PIPE financing, which explains why Cuban's defense isn't that he didn't get inside information prior to selling, but that he was never told the insider information was confidential.

That is so unlikely and weak that it should make most people laugh out loud.

Even if Cuban was not told the information was confidential, which again is impossible to believe given the sensitive nature of the call and the care the CEO took to document it, Cuban would have known that conversation was confidential anyway.

Besides, Cuban confesses that he knew it was a confidential call when he describes it as selling stock in a "private placement."

Hey Mark, private placement means the public won't be notified until after the deal is done... so like it or not, you ARE an investor who made a trade based on information the public wasn't privy to, information given to you by an insider. That is pretty much the definition of insider trading, and you confessed to it in your own blog.

Rather than placing your bet on semantics and vilifying the SEC, you ought to stop with the tantrum and get on their good side so you can cut a deal, because this civil suit, its legal costs, fines and restitution is going to cost you much more than $750,000. Best to pull a mea culpa and part with a million and try to make do with the remaining $2.3 billion you'll have left.

p.s. Perhaps Mark Cuban and Josh Howard deserve each other, but Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Kidd deserve better.

Today the Rio Grande Vipers drafted Smush Paker. There are 16 teams in the d-league, and Parker went at #14.

That boggles the mind.

Thirteen teams would rather take a chance on an unknown talent, then acquire a very known commodity in Smush Parker.

Once the starting point guard for the Los Angeles Lakers, sharing the back court with the venerable Kobe Bryant, Smush Parker averaged 11.1 points per game, 2.8 assists, and 2.5 rebounds... while matching up against the likes of 2-time NBA MVP Steve Nash.

But Parker's attitude put him on the bench watching rookie Jordan Farmar take his starting spot and minutes. Unrepentant, Parker lost his job with the Lakers altogether.Smush was picked up by the Miami Heat, and lasted a whole 9 games with them, then 19 games with the Los Angeles Clippers.

Smush Parker is a case study in the importance of having a good attitude.

--- EDIT ---

I still cannot make comments on Foxsports blogs, but I appreciate your comments, you guys. And thanks, Ricko, for the correction.