The Curious Case of Derek Fisher

AP Photo

What do LeBron James and Kobe Bryant both have in common? (Hint: not championships).  It’s Derek Fisher.  You know, the thirteen-year veteran from Arkansas Little Rock, who has been recruited personally by the two greatest basketball players in the world.  The number of players who can claim membership on this list both begins and ends with Fisher, despite all of this year’s free agent hoopla.

As the debate about Derek Fisher swirls, I find myself reminded of two distinctly unique players.  One is a man who single-handedly won the Los Angeles Lakers two playoff games this past postseason, while the other is arguably the worst starting point guard in the NBA.  While it may be hard to believe that one person could embody both of these descriptions, I assure you that I use neither description lightly.

In the 2010 season, Derek Fisher shot an abysmal 38% from the field (152nd among guards), and just 34.8% from three-point range (79th among guards).  Unfortunately for Laker fans, this didn’t stop him from shooting almost seven shots per game, with 2.7 of those coming from behind the arc, for a meager 7.5 points per game.  While most guards with similar numbers can at least boast high assist numbers, Fisher only averages 2.5 assists per game (85th among guards) in over 27 minutes per contest.  For comparison’s sake, consider the following mystery point guards:

A: 46% FG, 38.5% 3p, 12 ppg, 5.6 assists (33 minutes)

B: 37% FG, 34% 3P, 7.4 ppg, 5.4 assists (31 minutes)

C: 41.6% FG, 39.5% 3P, 7.3 ppg, 4.8 assists (27 minutes)

Now clearly, all three of these point guards have superior numbers to Fisher’s, with Fisher finishing at the bottom of each category listed.  The three players listed above are Raymond Felton, Chris Duhon, and Steve Blake.  Not exactly the all-star team, let alone above-average players.

Just as these words leave my mouth, I am quickly reminded of his game 3 performances in both the second round of the 2010 playoffs and of the NBA Finals.  The Lakers literally would have lost both of these games without Fisher.  Forget Kobe, Pau, Odom, or Artest, but Fisher was the irreplaceable player in both instances.  In game three of the Finals, Fisher scored eleven fourth-quarter points to give the Lakers a crucial win, to put them up 2-1 in the series, a series they most definitely would have lost without that game.  This all begs the question: what should the Lakers do?

The numbers tell us that the Lakers will be significantly better without Fisher in 98% of their games next season, and yet those games that fall in the last 2% just happen to come when the games matter most.  There are obviously other factors concerning his leadership ability and personal relationship with Kobe Bryant that increase his value as a Laker, but does that all make up for his awful statistics?  Ask any Laker fan what their thoughts are when Fisher hoists up an open three and I’ll tell you their answers aren’t pretty.  Remember that noise Laker fans made when Ron Artest threw up a three pointer in game three of the Western Conference finals? That’s just the Derek Fisher noise with the volume turned up a little bit.

So how will this all play out?  The question gets thrown out there and simply lingers, and yet, it’s a question that baffles me.  Championships aren’t won simply with statistics, and yet, teams must ask themselves just how much they want to put that theory to the test.  How much value is placed on leadership, the clutch factor, and loyalty will absolutely determine where Derek Fisher ends up next season, and while part of me hopes it’s in LA, a lot of me hopes it’s somewhere else.

Advertisement