Talk:Lakers-Kings rivalry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-13. The result of the discussion was Merge/Redirect; action to be taken by others.

1 No Serbs,no fun
2 Kobe vs. Artest
3 A fix?
4 Lakers VS The NBA

[edit] No Serbs,no fun

As soon as our players Divac and Pedja(or "Peja" as you call him)left,Sacremento became inferior.

But,i remeber when whole Serbia used to wake up around 3 or 4 am just to watch live broadcast of Lakers-Sacremento,and I remember Shaq being powerless against the best center over---VLADE DIVAC(for those of yo that dont know Divac is prbably going to run for President of Serbia in 2012,or so he said)Dzoni 04:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sacramento is NOT rural.

This section should be removed or merged with the Sacramento Kings wiki page. 3 or 4(?) post-seasons matchups do not constitute a rivalry. GT

I'm sorry but there is no way that Valde Divac is the best center ever.

umm well whoever deleted our conversation (kian) should just be quite and Vlade Divac is the best center ever. OKAY CHIEF KIAN!!!!

Vlade Divac the best center ever? Bill Russell? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? Shaquille O'Neal? David Robinson?

Correct. Anyone who seriously comments that Vlade Divac is the "best center ever" either is so filled with Serbian Vodka, or wine, that he or she is in a stupor...or is trying to rewrite history in the style Yugoslavs have become accustomed to under such leaders as Tito or Slobadan Milosovic (sp??) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.150.176 (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

24.113.250.46 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Would anyone like to buy a Divac (best center ever) signed Basketball if so email jamesw@gosfgiants.com 24.113.250.46 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kobe vs. Artest

I can't find any sources on the mini-brawl... Ranma9617 04:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lakers didn't even have a game against the Kings on Jan. 8, 07

[edit] A fix?

Some of the claims in this article about the 2002 Western Conference Finals are laughable.

For one thing, the Kings did not get called for 27 fouls in the 4th quarter of Game 6, the claim beggars belief. Actually, the Lakers shot 27 foul shots in the 4th quarter. The Kings were called for 16 fouls in the 4th quarter to the Lakers' 8.

In addition, the claim that Game 6 "is often said to be fixed" is absurd. For the first 3 quarters of this "often said to be fixed" game, the Lakers shot 13 free throws (to the Kings 16), and the Kings had 15 fouls (to the Lakers 16). I do not have an intimate knowledge of fixes, but it seems like waiting until the 4th quarter to call fouls on the team that is supposed to lose is not a wise strategy; much wiser would be to call fouls early, to force the team that is supposed to lose to sit key players for long stretches of time. Did someone not inform the officials of the fix until the break between the 3rd and 4th quarters?

Yes, the Lakers shot 27 free throws in the 4th quarter, when their game plan consisted of getting the ball inside to Shaq on almost every possession. When teams go inside every possession, they tend to get fouls, and shoot more free throws--and Shaq had 12 points and 6 rebounds in the 4th quarter. And, in the 4th quarter, Shaq shot 10 free throws, while Bryant only shot 3 free throws, until the end of the quarter (i.e., the last 19 seconds, when the Kings needed to foul because the Lakers had the ball, the Kings were behind, and there were less than 24 seconds on the clock). And I would think that it would be obvious to anyone who knows anything about the game that sending Shaq to the free throw line is not the best way for an official to make good on a fix--and, true to expectation, he only hit 6 of those 10 free throws.

In Game 6, Sacramento was whistled for 31 fouls, while the Lakers were whistled for 24 fouls. As I said previously, the Kings were called for 16 fouls in the 4th quarter to the Lakers' 8. 3 of the Kings fouls (and 6 of the Lakers' free throws) were committed (and taken) in the last 19 seconds of the game (with the Kings behind), and were clearly intentional. The foul disparity for the first 11.40 of the 4th quarter was 13 to 8--tilted to one side, obviously, but I'm guessing that it's not exactly the sort of thing you'd see if a game was fixed.

This disparity is well within what would normally be expected in an NBA game--by way of illustration, in Game 5--a game that Sacramento won by 1 point on a late shot by Bibby--the Lakers were called for 27 fouls to the Kings 20, and the Kings shot 10 more free throws. Shaq fouled out of Game 5, only played 32 minutes, and only had one free throw attempt (despite taking 18 shots). Was that game fixed in the Kings favor?

For the record, for the series the Kings shot 204 free throws, and the Lakers shot 185.

I suspect that the only people who are saying that the game was fixed are Kings fans who are upset that they had a solid team a few years back that failed to win a championship, and when they had their best chance, they choked against their biggest rival. Questionable officiating goes both ways, and it doesn't always indicate a fix.CFBSolon 09:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Count me as one of those who consider the game fixed. Questionable officiating alone would not have produced the sixteen foul calls, many of which were considered dubious by the on-air commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.197.137 (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)