By Ricardo Aparicio

The San Antonio Spurs grabbed a 2-0 series lead in their second round matchup with the Los Angeles Lakers Wednesday night. After squeezing past L.A. in game one, the Spurs overwhelmed the Lakers 114-95 in a game that wasn't as close as the score suggested. This series isn't over yet, but the Lakers are in their deepest playoff hole since 1999 - the last year L.A. did not win the championship. Three distinct problems have brought the Lakers to this point - problems which by themselves don't usually knock off champions. But it's a different story when those same problems strike all at once, as the Lakers are finding out.

A SLOW START

Going into this San Antonio series, the Lakers had won thirteen straight playoff series. And in twelve of those series, the Lakers won the first game. That's right, twelve. (Philadelphia took game one of the 2001 NBA Finals and lost the rest) Obviously, it's beneficial to win that first game of a series. Besides that, the Lakers have only trailed in a series three times during this championship run - twice versus Sacramento in the 2002 Western Conference finals (2-1 and 3-2) and once versus Minnesota (2-1) in the 2003 first round. In the NBA Playoffs, starting fast usually means finishing strong.

PURPLE AND GOLD = BLACK AND BLUE

The Lakers have been relatively resistant to injury during this three-peat. The only Laker injury that comes to mind was Shaquille O'Neal's sore toe last season. Shaq may have played hurt, but the pain didn't inhibit his production. The Spurs and Kings haven't been as lucky these last three seasons. In 2000, the Spurs were forced to defend their NBA Title without Tim Duncan - a knee injury finished his season before the playoffs began. In 2001, the Spurs lost their second leading scorer Derek Anderson in the second round of the playoffs. In 2002, the Sacramento Kings played most of the playoffs without ailing All-Star Peja Stojakovic.

2003 has been a different story. The Spurs and Kings are healthy and rolling. The Lakers, on the other hand, are the walking wounded: Rick Fox is out, Devean George missed game two against the Spurs and may miss more time, and Kobe Bryant has been dealing with a nicked shoulder since the middle of the first round. Hard to play consistent basketball without a whole basketball team.

STANDING PAT

Glen Rice may be gone, but the 2003 Laker roster still looks suspiciously similar to the 2000 Laker roster. Meanwhile, the Spurs and Kings have made significant upgrades to their teams during the last three seasons. For the Spurs, Bruce Bowen, Tony Parker, Stephen Jackson, and Manu Ginobili immediately jump to mind. With the Kings, I think of Mike Bibby, Keon Clark, Bobby Jackson, and Jimmy Jackson. Who did the Lakers add since 2000? Stanislav Medvedenko? Jenneret Pargo? Mark Madsen? Samaki Walker? Mike Penberthy? Yes, Kareem Rush seems promising and Madsen does play hard, but the term "Laker depth" seems contradictory in nature. In 1999, the Lakers were swept 4-0 by the Spurs, and those Lakers may have had more talent from one to twelve than the current squad.

HITTING THE SWITCH?

So the Lakers are finished now, right?

Not so fast. Everything I've mentioned is factually correct. But the Lakers can still circle the wagons like no other team in basketball. The 2002 Kings and 2003 Timberwolves can certainly attest to that fact.

However, even the Lakers' survival skills are cracking: The 'Wolves staved off a Laker rally in game three of their series, and the Spurs did the same in game one of the second round. The Lakers turned a must win game two into a nineteen-point loss. The Lakers may have run out of switches to throw. The Spurs will probably finish the Lakers off. But even if the Lakers survive the Spurs, they will fall swiftly at the hands of the Sacramento Kings. 2003 just isn't the Lakers' year.


InsideHoops.com is the online leader in pro basketball coverage.