Plaschke: Can Lakers steal series? Anything is possible after Game 1 win 89%

By Bill Plaschke0%

4/19/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 65.5% saturation with 758 hits. Analysis detected 3,387 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,157 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.4% and a BS Rank of 89% (2,572 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.30% of the article peer group.

The Lakers limped painfully into the playoffs Saturday night only to delightfully discover a miracle salve. 
An opponent as mangled as they were. 
Yes, the Lakers are beginning this tournament seriously hampered by the indefinite absences of Luka Doncic and Austin Reaves. 
But  surprise, surprise  the Houston Rockets showed up with a bad leg of their own, a recently suffered knee contusion that sidelined leading scorer Kevin Durant for at least the first game of this first-round series. 
The result? 
Check out the wide-mouthed scream unleashed by the Lakers' Luke Kennard midway through the fourth quarter. 
The Lakers: Loud and surprising and inspiring. 
The Rockets: None of the above. 
No Durant meant no Laker problem, a potentially tough battle never appearing in doubt, the Lakers earning a 107-98 victory at Crypto.com Arena that represented the triumph of connection over confusion. 
The Lakers were connected, apparently having had time to adjust to the loss of their two leading scorers, LeBron James acting as a brilliant playmaker for scorching hot shooters like Kennard, who hit all five of his treys in scoring a career playoff-high 27 points. 
The Rockets were confused, Durant being a late scratch and their attack being lost without him, Reed Sheppard and Amen Thompson combining for 38 shots and a bunch of misses. 
At one end, the Lakers were perfectly executing, the 41-year-old James becoming the oldest player to have 13 assists in a playoff game, Deandre Ayton missing only two of 10 shots inside, so much nifty passing, so many open looks. 
On the other end, the Rockets were a complete mess, dissolving in two whining technical fouls in the third quarter that sealed their fate. 
The Lakers might be missing Doncic and Reaves but, man, the Rockets really, really, really missed Durant. 
The Lakers were good enough to win despite being outrebounded 21-3 on the offensive glass. 
They were good enough to survive despite committing 20 turnovers. 
They were so efficient despite their obvious deficiencies, one has to wonder  could this one game blend into several games? 
Say, as many as three more wins in this best-of-seven series? 
Could the Lakers actually steal this first round? 
At first glance, this result could mean nothing, just one fortunate win by an injured team against another injured team, the Lakers underdogs again in Game 2 if Durant returns as expected. 
However, this result could also mean everything, the Lakers gaining the confidence they need to defeat the Rockets even with Durant, this being a game that could create the kind of rich belief that could result in a deeper spring run. 
Think about it. 
This game could be a springboard to a series win that would lead to a Western Conference semifinal series in two weeks. 
By that time, even though the odds are against it, let's say Doncic and Reaves attempt to play and, even though the likely opponent would be the NBA-best Oklahoma City Thunder, who knows what happens? 
It won't happen. 
It can't happen. 
It was recently written in this space that it should never happen, that the Lakers shouldn't risk further injury by rushing back Doncic or Reaves, that they should forget about this season and focus on next October. 
Then again  who knew Kevin Durant would bang his knee? 
And who knew the NBA would stretch out this first-round series long enough to give Doncic and Reaves more healing time? 
Enough, enough. 
Let's put a pause on all this speculation and just enjoy what Saturday's playoff opener wrought. 
For the first time since the two injuries, the Lakers were fun again. 
For the first time since they went 15-2 in one stretch this spring, they seemed actually really good again. 
After they blew a distraction-filled, first-round series against Minnesota last season, coach JJ Redick has long preached to them about ignoring the noise and creating a singular playoff mentality. 
That mentality was in full effect Saturday as they played as if they were at full strength, and the Rockets were at full strength, and they were just the better team. 
“You can't worry about who is in or out of the lineup,” said Redick. 
“Its our game plan, our standards, it's how we play, we've built toward that.” 
And thus bulldozed the hapless Houstoners. 
“Our guys  met the moment,” he said. 
So did Redick, who deserves credit for reacting to the late news of Durant's absence, as he and his esteemed coaching staff drew up effective adjustments on the fly. 
“There’s a lot that you have to do with Kevin,” Redick acknowledged. 
“You scrap that and move on to all the other stuff.” 
Meanwhile, the Lakers showed some seriously good stuff early, coming out firing in the first quarter, scoring on their first three shots, eight of their first nine, and eventually 16 of their first 20. 
James was everywhere, moving the ball, setting up his teammates, recording an amazing eight assists in the first quarter, his best single assist quarter among his 294 playoff games. 
All that, and during the quarter he flew into the baseline seats striving for a loose ball. 
“He displayed great vision throughout,” Redick said of James, who scored 19 points in 38 minutes and was a team-high plus-11. 
“We talked all week about being connected offensively. 
He led us there.” 
The tone had been set  and continued to be set after James made a flying pin-against-the-backboard block of Thompson in the second quarter  and then he really got loud after Houston took advantage of all those Lakers turnovers to take a brief lead early in the third. 
James barked at Rui Hachimura, who screamed back, 'What?'" 
Play better, that's what. 
And that's exactly what they did, Hachimura hitting a three, Kennard hitting a three, James scoring twice on back-in layups and then making a great steal at midcourt. 
The ferocity of the Lakers' answer rattled Houston such that the Rockets were hit with two technical fouls on unbridled anger from Jae'Sean Tate and coach Ime Udoka. 
Then they absorbed further insult on a soaring blocked shot by Jake LaRavia. 
By the fourth quarter, this game was over, leaving it to Kennard to send the crowd howling into the night by supplying three fourth-quarter treys on three attempts and making a Game 1 MVP out of Rob Pelinka. 
The Lakers' embattled basketball boss smartly acquired renowned shooter Kennard from the Atlanta Hawks in early February for Gabe Vincent and a second-round draft pick and  are you kidding me? 
Kennard was making half of his three-point attempts at the time of the trade. 
How did Pelinka acquire him so relatively cheap? 
“I liked that he was aggressive,” said Redick of Kennard's Saturday showcase. 
“There's a snowball effect to that.” 
Before this series, the Lakers had a snowball in hell's chance of winning it. 
Now? 
Bundle up. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.9%Bill Plaschke: 5.1%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias11.9%This article: 2.8%Bill Plaschke: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias2.8%This article: 7.0%Bill Plaschke: 2.6%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic7.0%This article: 0.5%Bill Plaschke: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.5%This article: 10.8%Bill Plaschke: 3.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias10.8%This article: 1.8%Bill Plaschke: 2.7%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias1.8%This article: 2.1%Bill Plaschke: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect2.1%This article: 1.1%Bill Plaschke: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion1.1%This article: 4.6%Bill Plaschke: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.5%Bill Plaschke: 12.8%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias14.5%This article: 3.3%Bill Plaschke: 2.1%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias3.3%This article: 20.7%Bill Plaschke: 7.2%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias20.7%This article: 6.4%Bill Plaschke: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias6.4%This article: 14.1%Bill Plaschke: 3.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error14.1%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.6%Bill Plaschke: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.6%This article: 0.5%Bill Plaschke: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.5%This article: 23.8%Bill Plaschke: 20.8%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect23.8%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 3.5%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Bill Plaschke: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 7.3%Bill Plaschke: 2.9%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.4%Bill Plaschke: 3.9%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 4.1%Bill Plaschke: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 1.9%Bill Plaschke: 2.8%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope1.9%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.9%Bill Plaschke: 6.2%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization8.9%This article: 1.4%Bill Plaschke: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring1.4%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.4%Bill Plaschke: 6.7%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion20.4%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 23.0%Bill Plaschke: 7.9%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.7%Bill Plaschke: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division2.7%This article: 2.7%Bill Plaschke: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal2.7%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.6%Bill Plaschke: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.6%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.3%Bill Plaschke: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.3%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.8%Bill Plaschke: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.8%This article: 1.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection1.0%This article: 65.5%Bill Plaschke: 60.2%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice65.5%This article: 8.4%Bill Plaschke: 4.2%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination8.4%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Plaschke: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Bill Plaschke: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.2%

1157 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers9.9%attributed speech1,042writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Plaschke • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageJJ Redick • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJJ Redick • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageJJ Redick • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageJJ Redick • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJJ Redick • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageJJ Redick • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJJ Redick • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJJ Redick • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJJ Redick • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJJ Redick • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Plaschke

100%flagged-word coverage
5 attributed words4.3% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+27.7 ptsWriter: 72.3%Plaschke: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-9.3 ptsWriter: 9.3%Plaschke: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%Plaschke: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.1 ptsWriter: 1.1%Plaschke: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-0.9 ptsWriter: 0.9%Plaschke: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.