Biggest NBA Playoff Myths Exposed

When we encounter the playoffs, we tend to make assumptions.

We make the assumption of which players will perform and which players falter. We'll decide which teams are ready to make a run and which are pretenders even though anything is possible come playoff time. We'll even go as far as making the assumption of how a team is constructed and why they won't make it far.

The greatest thing about the playoffs in any sport is how unpredictable it is. Outside of the NCAA women's tournament, anything is possible in the postseason.

You'll encounter a team like the Golden State Warriors that will defeat the No. 1 seeded Dallas Mavericks and then come two games away from the conference finals. You'll find a squad like the Memphis Grizzlies from last year that will beat a No. 1 seed and then come a game away from the conference finals despite losing arguably their top player.

That's what makes these playoffs so amazing to watch. The unpredictability and the fact that no analyst knows what they're talking about when the postseason begins. We can make all the predictions we want, but it doesn't mean anything once it begins. Some teams get hot and others go in the opposite direction; it's just how this crazy game works.

Today, we address five of these myths dealing with a few players and a few organizational disputes going into the postseason.

It's time to go Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman on this.

Kobe Bryant's Selfishness Hurts More Than It Helps

Kobe Bryant doesn't facilitate the Los Angeles Lakers offense by passing. It didn't happen before, it's not going to happen now, and it's not going to happen in the future, so get over it. He's still averaging five assists per game for his career and has five NBA championships, two Finals MVPs and a league MVP to show for it.

He acquired all of those accolades—as well as a couple thousand All-Star appearances and a pair of scoring titles—by being the player he is. He's not looking to pass. He's looking to score because that's where he helps his team out the most. If Bryant is passing the ball, you're denying him a shot, and you're not running the same offense that's helped your team to three consecutive Finals appearances.

Does Bryant shoot too much at times? Absolutely. He can become extremely self-centered and selfish when the ball is in his hands a few too many possessions. However, it's the same attitude that we constantly criticize that has enabled Bryant to become a surefire Hall of Famer and arguably one of the ten best players to ever play the game of basketball.

You can't change a player like Bryant. He goes into every game thinking and knowing he's the best player on the court, so it's his responsibility to lead his team to victory. You call it arrogance, but I call it confident in his abilities.

I'd much rather have the guy who has the confidence to take the final shot after a bad shooting day rather than the player who's afraid to shoot because of a few too many missed shots.

Being hot has absolutely nothing to do with it, either. Bryant started a game against the New Orleans Hornets this season missing his first 15 shots, yet he still had the confidence to convert three field goals in the fourth quarter including the game winner. Its decisions like those that separate the ambitious from the pretenders.

Bryant knows how to win games. There isn't a player in the league that knows how to win games better than Kobe Bryant, and that's why the Los Angeles Lakers are still championship contenders despite not having a bench.

That selfishness that is so often criticized is what turned Bryant into one of the league's greatest players and winners.

A Facilitator at the Point Is Essential

Excuse me for the Miami Heat reference I will use. Trust me, there aren't many more left.

If there is one criticism I constantly hear about the Heat and their run to the championship, it's that they lack the true point guard to get them to that point. I'm one to side with them because Mario Chalmers, Mike Bibby and Eddie House certainly aren't the best point guards you want to have to make a title run, but it's also a pointless argument.

It doesn't matter who contributes. If you have a point guard that can facilitate the offense effectively like Rajon Rondo does with the Boston Celtics, then it certainly gives you an advantage. However, having a point guard like Rondo who can continually set up plays and lead the offense isn't as essential as many have it out to be.

Am I right, Laker fans? The Lakers have been to three of the past four NBA Finals, yet they had arguably the worst starting point guard in the NBA in Derek Fisher. He wasn't a facilitator in the slightest, could barely keep his defensive assignment in front of him and couldn't create a shot to save his life.

The Lakers kept him in the starting lineup basically to hit key shots and to get open when they needed him to. The Lakers won two consecutive titles in 2009 and '10, yet had a point guard averaging three assists in both of those seasons. They didn't need a point guard to facilitate because they relied on other variations to score.

Does having a point guard who can facilitate help? Absolutely. It gives your team a tremendous advantage when you have a player like Rondo, Steve Nash or Jason Kidd distributing the ball. They make life a lot easier on offense because they can see the court better and create plays where the average point guard can't.

But does that mean it's essential for a point guard who facilitates to be on your championship roster? Not at all. Having Magic Johnson on your team helps, but so does five players who know how to play and know how to score.

There's a Need to Have a Big Man Who Can Score Down Low

If you don't have an influential big man on your team, you might as well stop attempting to win a title at the start of the season.

Every single NBA champion has had a big man with a strong influence to aid their team. The Boston Celtics of the 1980s had Kevin McHale and Robert Parish; the Los Angeles Lakers had Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal and Pau Gasol in each of their successful eras; and the San Antonio Spurs had Tim Duncan and even David Robinson for their first title.

It is absolutely essential to have a big man on your team to create some sort of effect for their benefit. What many critics like to point out, however, is that you need to have a big man who creates an effect on the offense in terms of scoring. Like having an essential point guard, it certainly helps, but it's not something you need to have.

Not every NBA champion has had Hakeem Olajuwon averaging 27 points or Abdul-Jabbar tallying 30 points per night. You don't need that type of scoring influence to win a title. In fact, the best teams in NBA history had a 6'7" power forward who averaged over 10 points per game once in his career and a lethargic center with bad hands.

I speak of the Chicago Bulls in their second three-peat. The 1996, 1997 and 1998 Chicago Bulls had not one imposing threat on offense down low. Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen were probably the best players at posting up on those teams, yet they won three consecutive championships without a reliable 4 or 5 who could score.

They won those championships because Dennis Rodman and Luc Longley made their presence felt in ways that don't always show up in the box score. You can take note of Rodman's rebounds and ability to create added possessions with his work on the offensive boards, but you also fail to note how he was everywhere on the court and did his work on the defensive end as well.

Longley was a huge imposing presence that stood at 7'2" and weighed in at 265 pounds. He had awful shooting percentages for a center and never recorded six rebounds per game or more with the Bulls but made his impact felt with his size.

It's not fair to discount the teams that lack a big man who can do nothing but score. As long as you have a 4 or 5 who can make a large impact felt on either side of the ball, you're going to have a team that's ready to win a title.

A Dispute Between Teammates Cripples a Chance at Winning

One of the last things you want as a head coach is a locker-room feud between your two best players.

It's hard enough to beat the team you're facing in the postseason, but it makes it more difficult when you have to face yourself. When the playoffs come around, there is a huge need for focusing on the goal at hand and beating the team that you're lined up with. Anything can happen in seven games and you need your team, especially your top players, to remain mentally stable.

This is what seemed to occur in last year's Western Conference Finals between the Dallas Mavericks and Oklahoma City Thunder. In one of the most entertaining series of the 2011 postseason, the Mavericks and Thunder battled it out in every single game before Dallas emerged with a series win in only five games.

Five games? That's troubling. The Thunder were playing well throughout the postseason, yet couldn't seem to persevere in the fourth quarter. In every Thunder loss, they held a lead at one point. When you consider that this team has several established clutch players in Kevin Durant, James Harden and Russell Westbrook, you ponder why this team can't step up.

Give credit to Dirk and the Mavericks, who would eventually win it all, but the Thunder played well below their usual standards. Westbrook was attempting the fourth quarter shots that Durant had usually been taking. Nobody knows why it happened, but it did and it resulted in the Thunder losing in only five games. Durant played spectator to Westbrook's many missed jump shots throughout the series.

What we later found out was a possible dispute between Durant and Westbrook. Apparently there was some possible accusations of ball-hogging from one player to another. That happened early on in the playoffs, and it seemed to be magnified once we witnessed what was happening to the Thunder in their final series.

A feud doesn't spell the end of a dynasty in the making. It might have separated Jim Jackson and Jason Kidd, but these minor disputes between Durant and Westbrook aren't enough to break up what could be a future dynasty.

After all, one of the league's greatest dynasties won despite the two best players feuding for years. Between 2000 and 2003, the Lakers won three consecutive titles despite growing tension between the team's two superstars in Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal.

We immediately began to hear of rumors sending Russell Westbrook out for a pass-first point guard. Every single analyst and critic decided that this was a feud, and there needed to be a breakup.

Basically, what we're saying is not to jump to conclusions and not to think of breaking up a team, even if the two top players could be in possible disputes.

LeBron James Can't Step Up in the Clutch

LeBron James has been in a bunch of playoff series over his NBA career.

In nine years, James has taken part in 17 series. He's never gotten ousted in the first round, has never been swept within his conference's playoffs and has been to three conference finals and two NBA Finals.

Yet there are two series that everyone seems to constantly bring up. James' biggest critics bring up his final series with the Cleveland Cavaliers when they fell to the Boston Celtics in the second round of the 2010 playoffs and the 2011 NBA Finals.

In two of the lowest points of James' career, his head seemed to be on another planet. He looked nothing like the MVP the NBA crowned him as in two consecutive seasons.

While James blames the lack of superior play in the series against Celtics on an elbow injury, his critics would still like to say that he gave up and was already decided on leaving Cleveland.

Hilarious when you think about James recording 27 points, 19 rebounds and 10 assists in the Cavs game six loss and the fact that he averaged 29 points, nine boards and eight assists in the 2010 postseason.

But what do we look at? The one bad game he had when he recorded a mere 15 points on 3-of-14 shooting. That's enough proof to convince a large consensus of NBA fans and analysts that James quit on his team.

The NBA Finals? There's no explanation for that. James played small the entire series and couldn't find a way to get himself involved. We're not sure if it was the Mavericks' zone defense that startled him or the bright lights of the NBA Finals. Either way, James was crucified for not being able to lead his team to their second championship since 2006.

It's interesting how much more magnified James' failures are than his successes. For instance, there are plenty of mentions of the Mavericks stopping James, yet do we ever hear of James' success against Derrick Rose and a Chicago Bulls team that was predicted to stampede over the Heat?

Let's not forget that the Heat weren't even believed to get out of last year's second round by some. Yet in each series, whether it was against Philadelphia, Boston or Chicago, James was the one saving his team and leading them to that point in the Finals.

It was unfortunate that he couldn't come through in the Finals, but it's even more unfortunate that we forget how prolific of a player he was before then.

So easily we forget that James led an 18-3 charge in the final minutes of the Heat's series clinching win against the Bulls. So easily we forget that James scored 29 of the Cavaliers final 30 points in his second-ever postseason. So easily we forget that James led a team whose best players were Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Larry Hughes all the way to the NBA Finals.

James is looking to eviscerate that choker label that's constantly stuck on him in this year's playoffs. He hasn't done too bad thus far with three consecutive fourth quarters of pure dominance against the New York Knicks.