if the lakers still had ariza instead of artest would they be down 3-2?

saw this q on YA and it was interesting to me.

Well I think artest is a better defender than Ariza.. and he has done a good job with pierce for the most part this series. Artests only problem is that he still doens't really know the offense.. Ariza did.

but I still think they would be down 3-2. This series isn't being decided because of Artest.. the lakers bench has been inconsistent and they aren't clicking on offense at the same time. One quarter Gasol will be hot, the next kobe will get hot.. Q after that it's fisher.. but the other guys are nowhere to be found..

yes cause than pierce would have 5 good games not 2 or 3 cause ariza is a bad defender from what i saw

bball playa (from y/a) wrote:

yes cause than pierce would have 5 good games not 2 or 3 cause ariza is a bad defender from what i saw

Ariza isn't a bad defender.. he's just not as physical as Artest.

But he wouldnt be good on pierce either...

No..theyd be down 4-0

I cant stop laughing at ur avi Visa haha

Yea I still think so

Ariza is a good role player on offense.....unlike Artest.....

But Artest is a lockdown defender. For the first 3 games I would say Ron locked down Paul, but now Pul found a rythem....mainly cause he is using much more pick and rolls

Plus its not like Ariza can create his own shot either. Unless Kobe or the triangle offense finds him he aint gonna score or get much touches.

This is crazy. Were better with Artest easily. 2 wins left on the board. 2 games left for the championship. We got this.

Artest did better an we would still be down

They would be worse...

If the Lakers still had Ariza instead of Artest, Durant would have picked apart the Lakers and they might not even had made it out of that round...

I've seen and heard both sides of the argument. Durant might have presented more of a challenge in the first round had they kept Ariza, but I think he'd be doing a better job knocking down open shots than Artest, who oddly seems like he can only make tough ones (and not a great percentage of them either). Again, Ariza wasn't very good from long distance this year either, so I don't know if that stretch in the playoffs could be duplicated. He isn't as physical of a defender, and while he can make the offense a little quicker (more fast breaks), I don't know if having him would make the team better or worse. I'm inclined to believe Artest was the right choice, in the way that he locked down Durant as well as anyone could have, and then slowed Pierce. Last night's game really opens it for debate, though. He didn't play defense. He didn't play offense, and he was not doing much of anything productive for the Lakers. A player like Ariza might always be active and making something happen, whereas Ron Artest sometimes just look slow.

Either way, I don't think we'll ever know because we only get to see this version of the Laker lineup play out, and not one with Ariza. I guess I'd say yes they'd still be down 3-2 because Artest is not the only poor player offensively in this series.

The thing I have a problem is his offense his defense not as much but his O VERY MUCHO... in yesterdays game they had a fast break and Artest was running I SWEAR ... HE IS THE SLOWEST PLAYER!!! EVER!! gets on my nerves lol...

He's good player

Class2010 wrote:

The thing I have a problem is his offense his defense not as much

So you have a problem with his D too?lol

The Lakers are missing Bynum now. If he is healthy they can win.