Yaxel Lendeborg can have the last word. As of Thursday morning, my preference is for Luka Doncic to leave it right there. There is no basketball prize for winning the postgame argument after your team has already won the game.
The Lakers beat Golden State 127-105 on Wednesday, and Doncic scored 28 points in three quarters, according to Greg Beacham’s Associated Press report. Lendeborg told reporters he had lost respect for Doncic because of his complaints to officials. I care much more about the part of Doncic’s response that concerned his own behavior: “Not trying to get techs.” That is the approach worth keeping when the score is less comfortable.
I enjoy a rookie challenging a star and refusing to surrender the conversation. A star recognizing that he can enjoy the confrontation without paying for it is useful. I want the Lakers to take that second part seriously. Doncic does not need to become a silent monk who thanks defenders for their effort. He should keep the grin, the confidence and the willingness to answer a challenge. He should also make the next basketball decision as if nobody said anything.
That is a harder standard than simply telling him to stop talking. It asks him to separate what sharpens his game from what gives an opponent an opening. Jawing while the ball is dead can be harmless fun. Carrying an argument into the next possession is a choice the Lakers should want him to avoid. The possession belongs to the team, even when the insult was addressed to Luka.
Beacham reported that Lendeborg received a technical during their exchange. Doncic’s account was that he avoided a matching one. That is the small victory I would carry forward from the confrontation. There is no obligation to split the bill just because somebody else ordered the argument.
The trap for Lakers fans is turning this into a referendum on whether Lendeborg is allowed to speak. Of course he is. I want a defender who believes he can handle the assignment. Requiring a rookie to pay tribute before competing would make for some deeply boring basketball. His opinion of Doncic can be wrong, exaggerated or irritating without requiring a response from the Lakers every time a microphone appears.
Nor should the final score become an excuse to dismiss everything about the matchup. Team results and individual defensive possessions answer different questions. A blowout does not automatically mean every defender was helpless. Equally, a defender liking his own work does not mean he solved the opponent’s offense. I would rather judge the next meeting by the shots the Lakers generate than by which player has the more quotable account of it.
There is a useful distinction here for Doncic’s shot selection. If Lendeborg has a good defensive possession, Luka should be willing to move the ball. If a switch produces a better matchup elsewhere, take it. If the defense sends help, reward the open teammate. My concern would be an offense that keeps returning to a personal challenge after the defense has offered an easier way to score.
We made the basketball case for Doncic making Golden State defend the paint first before the opener. That is still where I would start. Getting a defense to react gives the ballhandler choices. Trying to prove that one particular defender cannot guard you can narrow those choices before the possession even begins. I would happily trade a satisfying isolation clip for an ordinary pass that produces an uncontested finish.
The same principle explains why I would keep Kessler’s finishing role in the conversation. Feeding a teammate should remain an attractive answer when a defender is demanding a personal duel. The insult can wait. The passing window cannot. If Golden State wants the game to become Luka against Lendeborg, the Lakers should insist on using everybody else too.
That approach does not require Doncic to concede anything. Passing out of pressure is a way to punish pressure. Making the defender chase through another action is a way to test him again. A star can control the terms of an encounter by declining the specific contest his opponent wants. The best answer to a player saying you cannot score on him might be making him explain why his team keeps surrendering good shots elsewhere.
I also do not need Doncic to claim that chatter has no effect on him. That would be an odd demand after a game built partly around a lively exchange. The better question is what he does with the energy. Use it to get into the action promptly, attack a gap or compete on the next defensive trip. Spending it lobbying the officials would be a poor return.
Our argument that Doncic’s title pledge should start with his own play applies here in a very practical way. Leadership can be as small as letting an irritating comment pass without making the whole team participate in the response. I would want teammates to know that the next good shot still matters more than settling his account with a defender.
For the next matchup, my checklist is short. Does Doncic accept a useful screen even when the defender wants to go one-on-one? Does he pass when help commits? Does he get back into the game after a whistle? Those are things a fan can watch without pretending to know what either player is thinking. They also tell us more about whether this confrontation helps the Lakers than another round of postgame descriptions would.
There will be nights when a sharp exchange and a sharp performance arrive together. Enjoy them. I am not interested in removing the personality from the player. I am interested in the Lakers getting the basketball benefits without letting an opponent dictate the evening’s priorities. Wednesday offered Doncic a chance to talk about avoiding technicals while celebrating a win. Now he should make that restraint part of his game when a defender is annoying him and the ball is refusing to go in.
Let Lendeborg keep talking. Make him defend the next action.