Why I think the Kobe-Pau Lakers would be just as good today

[Im Still Ballin]

They'd thrive just as they did before. The Triangle would be more potent with the freedom of movement rule. Not to mention the legalized third (gather) step. They have the positional/lineup flexibility to be versatile, just as they were back then against proto-modern teams like Phoenix and Orlando. They also have the personnel to increase their 3PAr if needed. But I don't think it's as necessary as you'd think.

I'll keep my argument simple:

1) Size and offensive rebounding are still incredibly valuable.


It seemed as though there was a period of time in the 2010s where transition defense and smaller lineups were prioritized over offensive rebounding and size. But in the '20s, we've begun to see a return to traditionally valued second chance points. We've seen Taylor Jenkins' Memphis (2021-22) and Tom Thibodeau's Knicks (2022-23 and 2023-24) utilize offensive rebounding to create elite offenses despite below-average eFG%:


MEM 2021-22: 5th ORtg; +2.6 rORtg [23rd eFG%, 4th TOV%, 1st ORB%, 23rd FT/FGA]

NYK 2022-23: 3rd ORtg; +3 rORtg [20th eFG%, 5th TOV%, 2nd ORB%, 11th FT/FGA]
NYK 2023-24: 7th ORtg; +2.9 rORtg [16th eFG%, 15th TOV%, 1st ORB%, 15th FT/FGA]
NYK PLAYOFFS 2023-24: 2nd ORtg; +5.1 rORtg [10th/16 eFG%, 2nd/16 TOV%, 1st/16 ORB%, 5th/16 FT/FGA]

Both Memphis and New York utilize Aaron Fearne-style Tagging Up tactics to maximize offensive rebounding chances without sacrificing transition defense.

2) Elite modern offenses can and have been accomplished with high-volume mid-range and post-up shot selection.


I'm surprised this wasn't about the 2018-19 Spurs. They had the third-best half-court offense despite ranking 26th in 3PM, 30th in 3PA, and 30th in 3PAr.

Its overall offense was third-best in the playoffs: +3.0 rORtg compared to the 2018-19 playoffs league-average ORtg. +4.1 opponent-adjusted rORtg if you adjust for Denver's regular season DRtg. The Nuggets had the 10th-best regular-season defense, coming in at 1.5 points better (-1.5 rDRtg) than the league average. So, it was a solid defense they were up against.

SAS was 30th in playoff 3PAr (.233); a whopping -14.6 r3PAr/-38.5%/61.5 3PAr+ compared to the playoff average 3PAr (.379).

It's only seven games but it's food for thought. I made a thread on this several months back but no one responded:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2336902&hilit=Spurs

The KD/Kyrie Brooklyn Nets were doing similar things.

3) High-performing offenses can look any number of ways. Some leverage shot-making (eFG%) more while others lean on differing blends of FTr, ORB%, and TOV%.

4) Dual-big PF/C tandems have resulted in elite defenses in the modern era. See San Antonio from 2014-2018. 4.9 rDRtg while featuring Splitter-Duncan, LMA-Duncan, LMA-Gasol starting lineups.

5) There is no specific requirement for the number of three-point shooters or a vaguely defined amount of spacing for a lineup to be effective.


Another poor-faith stance is boiling the validity of a lineup to the number of three-point shooters or vague/undefined spacing. There have been many high-performing lineups in recent years with multiple non-shooters. Here are some examples:

(NBA.com and Basketball Reference lineup numbers vary slightly. This is due to a different possession formula I believe)

https://i.ibb.co/tw6p9bt/imagelineups.png

GSW's 2022-23 starting lineup. Featuring two non-shooters (Green, Looney), it was statistically far and away the best starting five in the NBA.

[quote]2023: S. Curry - K. Thompson - D. Green - A. Wiggins - K. Looney

- 27 games played, 331 minutes played
- 128.0 ORtg; 106.1 DRtg; +21.9 Net Rating (1st [min. 80 minutes played])

[Real Men Wear Green]

Even a team from 2009 would be utterly shell-shocked by modern three point shooting. Assuming Tatum isn't hampered by hero-worship the Celtics would beat them 4-1, the one loses being the game where the team as a hole shots terribly and maybe Kobe blows up. But the Celtics would have done of the best personnel to guard him anyone ever has. You beat the Celtics either with great scoring bruising big or an elite night of three point shooting. Kobe-Pau Lakers couldn't come with either. Bryant might be able to hero ball them to one win but Brown Holiday and Tatum are a rough trio to go through for any wing and then they have KP behind them (most nights).

[dankok8]

2024 Celtics are an all-time great team and them beating the Kobe-Pau Lakers (which they likely would) isn't exactly a knock on the latter. Those Lakers would still be contenders today. Fish/Kobe/Ariza is enough 3pt shooting too.

[Im Still Ballin]

2024 Celtics are an all-time great team and them beating the Kobe-Pau Lakers (which they likely would) isn't exactly a knock on the latter. Those Lakers would still be contenders today. Fish/Kobe/Ariza is enough 3pt shooting too.

How do they compare regarding full-strength SRS and playoff SRS? The '09 Lakers were pretty damn good IIRC:


This is a team that completely dominated the league and yet they're hardly talked about.

They won 65 gms with a 7.3 SRS and won a great conference by ten games. They were one of the best "healthy" teams ever:

http://www.backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-31-at-2.27.57-PM.png

2008 Lakers: +9.7
2009 Lakers: +9.0


2008-09 Lakers and Celtics. These teams were fantastic in an incredibly competitive league. The Celtics were +8.8 and +9.3 when healthy, and the Lakers +9.7 and +9.0 once Pau Gasol joined. Kevin Garnett’s injury robbed us of possibly the NBA’s greatest trilogy


Amazingly, of the top 40 healthy teams of all-time, seven are Pop’s Spurs teams. Five are Jordan’s Bulls. Four are Laker teams with Kobe Bryant.

And they were utterly dominant in the post-season:

The 09 Lakers rank sixth all-time in leverage-adjusted playoff SRS

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-year-of-the-warriors/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/neil-warriors-2-0617.png?w=575

Ahead of teams like the 1992 Bulls, 87 Lakers, 08 Celtics, and 1997 Bulls.

Seventh all-time in ELO blend
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/after-all-that-the-warriors-arent-even-the-second-best-team-ever/


Ahead of teams like the 92 and 91 Bulls, 83 Sixers, 14 Spurs, and 72 and 87 Lakers.

The best NBA teams ever (according to Elo). The 09 Lakers ranked eighth all-time in overall ELO.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-warriors-are-in-the-goat-debate-but-they-blew-their-chance-to-end-it


The 09 Lakers are higher than teams like the 92 Bulls, 91 Bulls, 83 Sixers,2014 Spurs, etc

The 09 Lakers had the sixth greatest peak ELO Rating in NBA histroy at 1790.0:


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/last-years-warriors-werent-the-best-ever-but-this-years-might-be/

They completely dominated in the post-season:

Their post-season adjusted SRS of 12.7[/b] was the sixth highest since 1984: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-year-of-the-warriors

Here they're ahead of teams like the 85 Lakers, 87 Lakers, 08 Celtics, and 97 Bulls.

The 09 Kobe/Pau/Odom was one of the absolute the most dominant trio we have on record. [b]The Kobe/Pau/Odom 09 trio (+17.5 in 3739 possessions) was the one of the very best we have recorded.

The 09 Lakers were also very arguably the best passing team in the league. Their team passer rating was #1 in the league and #61 all-time: http://www.backpicks.com/2018/07/15/nba-passer-ratings-since-1978/

Discuss.

[iamgine]

Kobe and Pau would be fine but I don't think that version of Derek Fisher and Trevor Ariza can hang today. Fisher would be hunted by every guard and Ariza couldn't shoot well and only got hot in the playoff. Lakers relied heavily on them since Bynum wasn't even playing 20 minutes in the playoff. If we take Ron Artest Lakers it's even worse since he's taking horrible low percentage shots like Artest loved to do and Fisher was even older. I think it's obvious the Kobe-Pau Lakers would be worse today, but not because of Kobe-Pau.

[Real Men Wear Green]

2024 Celtics are an all-time great team and them beating the Kobe-Pau Lakers (which they likely would) isn't exactly a knock on the latter. Those Lakers would still be contenders today. Fish/Kobe/Ariza is enough 3pt shooting too.

There have been over 20 teams with as many or more than the Celtics 64 wins. Although I believe Jaylen Brown should have been All-NBA the Celtics only had one AllNBA player and Tatum was 6th (I think) in mvp voting. Just the two Allstars. The Celtics probably were better than most nba champions but but judged by wins or awards there are a lot of teams that did better.

But even if you take them out of the argument the Gasol/Bryant Lakers would be overwhelmed by the threes on modern offenses. I don't see them winning the West. Bryant and Gasol are great as cornerstones but the rest of the team would have to be different. No NBA GM today is putting out a team with Fisher, Artest, Ariza and Odom spreading the floor. They probably would develop into better shooters if they came up today but if they're the exact same players that they were that team would not work.

[tpols]

. But the Celtics would have done of the best personnel to guard him anyone ever has. You beat the Celtics either with great scoring bruising big or an elite night of three point shooting. Kobe-Pau Lakers couldn't come with either.


That's really not true at all. The Lakers had one of the biggest and best tandems of low post scorers in the league with Pau / Odom / Bynum and Kobe who was an elite post player who would also easily be the best player in the series.

So if defending size in the post is a problem for Boston there isn't even a team in the league today that had what LA had back then in that regard.



Kobe and Pau would be fine but I don't think that version of Derek Fisher and Trevor Ariza can hang today. Fisher would be hunted by every guard.


Fisher was a better defensive player than guards Boston faced in the playoffs last year like Haliburton and Kyrie. Not a better player obviously but don't know where you're getting this idea he'd be "hunted". Defensive hustle was probably his strongest suit as a basketball player.

And an Artest / Kobe / Fisher perimeter defense is much better than the weak backcourt defenses Boston faced in the 2024 playoffs. Artest in particular would lock Tatum up just how he did Durant. Too skinny and weak.

[Real Men Wear Green]

That's really not true at all. The Lakers had one of the biggest and best tandems of low post scorers in the league with Pau / Odom / Bynum and Kobe who was an elite post player who would also easily be the best player in the series. Bynum averaged 15 points and Gasol was not a bruiser. Put them both out there and the advantage is solidly for the Celtics. Tatum has guarded Myles Turner and Bam Adebayo, he can defend in the paint. Gasol would be hopeless guarding Tatum on the perimeter. There's a reason two-big lineups have become less common.


So if defending size in the post is a problem for Boston there isn't even a team in the league today that had what LA had back then in that regard.It is a problem when they have to deal with Jokic or Giannis. Lakers don't have a dominant gut like those two.


Fisher was a better defensive player than guards Boston faced in the playoffs last year like Haliburton and Kyrie. Not a better player obviously but don't know where you're getting this idea he'd be "hunted". Defensive hustle was probably his strongest suit as a basketball player. Fisher would be the guy getting abused in the paint by KP when the Celtics forced the switch. He was not a special defender and even if he was the Celtics offense isn't at all focused on creating isolating plays for White or Holiday vs the opposing point guard. The Celtics want to exploit mismatches but when they do go with that kind of play it's going to be Tatum or Brown.


And an Artest / Kobe / Fisher perimeter defense is much better than the weak backcourt defenses Boston faced in the 2024 playoffs. Artest in particular would lock Tatum up just how he did Durant. Too skinny and weak.Artest was a great defender in his prime but as a lake he was past his prime. And saying Tatum is skinny and weak I'm not sure that you even watch basketball. Bryant could make it tough for JB but overall the Celtics would be burying the Lakers from the three point line.

[iamgine]

Fisher was a better defensive player than guards Boston faced in the playoffs last year like Haliburton and Kyrie. Not a better player obviously but don't know where you're getting this idea he'd be "hunted". Defensive hustle was probably his strongest suit as a basketball player.

And an Artest / Kobe / Fisher perimeter defense is much better than the weak backcourt defenses Boston faced in the 2024 playoffs. Artest in particular would lock Tatum up just how he did Durant. Too skinny and weak.
Fisher was a decent defender but was particularly weak against quick guards. And with the guards we have today, he'd be hunted every night.

Sure the defense is nice but their offense would be a mess. Not enough quality scoring.

[tontoz]

The Lakers averaged only 6.7 made 3s per game.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-pointers-made-per-game?date=2009-06-15


This past season last place Orlando made 11 per game.

[tpols]

Fisher was a decent defender but was particularly weak against quick guards. And with the guards we have today, he'd be hunted every night.

Sure the defense is nice but their offense would be a mess. Not enough quality scoring.


Never heard Fisher couldn't guard quick guards before. That's a new one. But even if it were true Jrue Holiday isn't a quick guard. He's more of a bully PG. So that wouldn't be a problem in the Boston matchup.

As far as quality scoring goes, OP just showed that the Lakers production was elite. They relied on offensive rebounding for it to an extent, which makes the efficiency lower but provides extra possessions and wears teams down physically.

Anybody that's played basketball against a team much bigger than them knows how tiring it can become. With the Lakers trio of 7 footers and bully Artest swinging elbows in the paint from a size perspective Boston is like a middleweight fighter and LA is like a heavyweight.

So it's a contrast of styles. LA obviously wouldn't just get into a 3pt chucking battle. They'd have to force double teams in the post which we know Boston and many other teams today would absolutely have to do, work the triangle to get the role players open 3s, and generally just dominate the paint.

TBH... the Garnett Pierce Ray Rondo Celtics were better than the 2024 iteration. They had the bullies like Perk and Tony Allen to bang with LA's size as well. This current Celtic team doesn't have that.

[iamgine]

Never heard Fisher couldn't guard quick guards before. That's a new one. But even if it were true Jrue Holiday isn't a quick guard. He's more of a bully PG. So that wouldn't be a problem in the Boston matchup.

As far as quality scoring goes, OP just showed that the Lakers production was elite. They relied on offensive rebounding for it to an extent, which makes the efficiency lower but provides extra possessions and wears teams down physically.

Anybody that's played basketball against a team much bigger than them knows how tiring it can become. With the Lakers trio of 7 footers and bully Artest swinging elbows in the paint from a size perspective Boston is like a middleweight fighter and LA is like a heavyweight.

So it's a contrast of styles. LA obviously wouldn't just get into a 3pt chucking battle. They'd have to force double teams in the post which we know Boston and many other teams today would absolutely have to do, work the triangle to get the role players open 3s, and generally just dominate the paint.

TBH... the Garnett Pierce Ray Rondo Celtics were better than the 2024 iteration. They had the bullies like Perk and Tony Allen to bang with LA's size as well. This current Celtic team doesn't have that.
Jrue isn't the only guard in the league you know.

It was elite when they played. Today, they'd be quite mediocre. I'm not sure they will even make the playoff the way they played.

[tpols]

Jrue isn't the only guard in the league you know.

It was elite when they played. Today, they'd be quite mediocre. I'm not sure they will even make the playoff the way they played.

You don't think the Laker team that won B2B championships would even make the playoffs today?

See you guys are totally out of wack. And I'm a 3pt guy too... but this is just getting out of hand. A lot of you fellas probably didn't play ball and don't know the effect size and strength can have on a matchup. This isn't Gobert and KAT in the paint. It's a trio of bigger much better inside players. And Kobe.

We just saw a Miami heat underdog team with Jimmy Butler and Bam as their best players make the Finals and those two guys aren't good long range shooters at all. But they won with their grit and toughness.

It's a contrast of styles. Artest and Fisher spaced the floor from deep even if they weren't always on target you had to guard them. Hell... Artest was MVP of G7 in the 2010 Finals and his Mos iconic plays were 3s.

2010 wasn't 1980 or 1990. Guys were actually being guarded @ the 3pt line.

[Phoenix]

I mean, I suppose 14 years in sports years and specifically the current NBA is a long time, especially with the proliferation of the 3pointer the last decade. But Kobe and Pau did win a title 14 years ago lol, it's not like them as individual players are outdated or as a duo. 2008-2010 Kobe is comfortably the best 2-guard today and Pau would still be a top flight big, he'd probably exclusively play the 5. Kobe would have a greater greenlight to shoot the 3 with more spaced out courts. His volume and % will likely noticeably rise.

You'd then surround then with the requisite 3 point shooting needed of more modern( say post 2014) teams. And I can imagine someone like a Jrue Holiday next to Kobe in the backcourt.

[iamgine]

You don't think the Laker team that won B2B championships would even make the playoffs today?

See you guys are totally out of wack. And I'm a 3pt guy too... but this is just getting out of hand. A lot of you fellas probably didn't play ball and don't know the effect size and strength can have on a matchup. This isn't Gobert and KAT in the paint. It's a trio of bigger much better inside players. And Kobe.

We just saw a Miami heat underdog team with Jimmy Butler and Bam as their best players make the Finals and those two guys aren't good long range shooters at all. But they won with their grit and toughness.

It's a contrast of styles. Artest and Fisher spaced the floor from deep even if they weren't always on target you had to guard them. Hell... Artest was MVP of G7 in the 2010 Finals and his Mos iconic plays were 3s.

2010 wasn't 1980 or 1990. Guys were actually being guarded @ the 3pt line.

Yes, the Lakers that won B2B, the way they were constructed, I'm not sure they make the playoff. They might tho.

Miami Heat ah yes look at how much more 3s they shot compared to the Lakers.

[iamgine]

I mean, I suppose 14 years in sports years and specifically the current NBA is a long time, especially with the proliferation of the 3pointer the last decade. But Kobe and Pau did win a title 14 years ago lol, it's not like them as individual players are outdated or as a duo. 2008-2010 Kobe is comfortably the best 2-guard today and Pau would still be a top flight big, he'd probably exclusively play the 5. Kobe would have a greater greenlight to shoot the 3 with more spaced out courts. His volume and % will likely noticeably rise.

You'd then surround then with the requisite 3 point shooting needed of more modern( say post 2014) teams. And I can imagine someone like a Jrue Holiday next to Kobe in the backcourt.

It's not about Kobe or Pau, they'd be fine. It's about the other Lakers.

[tpols]

Yes, the Lakers that won B2B, the way they were constructed, I'm not sure they make the playoff. They might tho.

Miami Heat ah yes look at how much more 3s they shot compared to the Lakers.

And yet... the 2020 and 2023 Miami Heat and 2009 Lakers had the same exact offensive efficiency over the course of the season. But the Lakers defensive and rebounding metrics were far superior. And LAs tandem of Kobe and Pau was > Butler and Bam.

So what you're saying isn't adding up. Miami made the Finals with a 25th ranked offense in 2023.

[Real Men Wear Green]

And yet... the 2020 and 2023 Miami Heat and 2009 Lakers had the same exact offensive efficiency over the course of the season. But the Lakers defensive and rebounding metrics were far superior. And LAs tandem of Kobe and Pau was > Butler and Bam.

So what you're saying isn't adding up. Miami made the Finals with a 25th ranked offense in 2023.

Miami made the Finals but you seem to forget that they were a play-in team. Their style was not particularly effective, Butler just played at a great level for a few series. Once they got to the finals they got destroyed. A team from the Lakers era that had never seen the level of the point shooting we have in the NBA now isn't going to be a contender. Bryant and Gasol would still be effective but they would have to be surrounded by far better shooters.

[RRR3]

The Lakers averaged only 6.7 made 3s per game.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-pointers-made-per-game?date=2009-06-15


This past season last place Orlando made 11 per game.
They’d get obliterated by the Celtics lmao.

[Phoenix]

It's not about Kobe or Pau, they'd be fine. It's about the other Lakers.

The thread topic is about Kobe and Pau, so my reply is focused on them. It being mainly about the others goes without saying, as is the case for any other elite players(s). And in saying that, 'the others' is highly variable. So what is your premise.. throw together 10 other hypothetical teammates? That's an exercise worth investing time and energy in? Kobe and Pau on their own would be a great core even in 2024, now you surround them with the right talent, coaching, system and circumstances. The formula doesn't change, you just tweak it to fit the league they're in.

[RRR3]

The thread topic is about Kobe and Pau, so my reply is focused on them. It being mainly about the others goes without saying, as is the case for any other elite players(s). And in saying that, 'the others' is highly variable. So what is your premise.. throw together 10 other hypothetical teammates? That's an exercise worth investing time and energy in? Kobe and Pau on their own would be a great core even in 2024?now you surround them with the right talent, coaching, system and circumstances based. The formula doesn't change, you just tweak it to fit the league they're in.
Kobe and Pau could be built around to make a good team in 2024 but those Lakers were built terribly for today. They were playing 3 bigs at times.

[tpols]

I just looked it up fellas because I knew what some of you cats were saying didn't add up in regards to the 3pt spacing of those Laker teams.

Look at Trevor Arizas playoff splits from 2009.

https://i.postimg.cc/8Ck8hqmf/Screenshot-20240905-125742-Chrome.jpg

He shot 50+% on average from deep. Best of his career... on absolute fire. And Derek Fisher played all 82 games that year and he shot 40% from 3pt range.

This is direct proof that LAs role players could shoot 3s and space the floor. Now the question is could today's champions with their weak defensive frontcourts contain their 2pt scoring in the triangle system.

We haven't seen this point addressed yet.

[Phoenix]

Kobe and Pau could be built around to make a good team in 2024 but those Lakers were built terribly for today. They were playing 3 bigs at times.

Yes but I'm not making a case for putting the 2008-2010 Lakers in 2024. I'm making the case that Kobe and Gasol would still be a great duo today, and you surround them with the right mix of players in today's league. Like...what is the conversation in question? How good would Kobe/Gasol be in 2024, or how good are the 2009 Lakers in 2024? Because my comments address the former scenario. Like... I ain't even said anything about the 2008-2010 Lakers lol...

[RRR3]

Yes but I'm not making a case for putting the 2008-2010 Lakers in 2024. I'm making the case that Kobe and Gasol would still be a great duo today, and you surround them with the right mix of players in today's league. Like...what is the conversation in question? How good would Kobe/Gasol be in 2024, or how good are the 2009 Lakers in 2024? Because my comments address the former scenario. Like... I ain't even said anything about the 2008-2010 Lakers lol...
The OP's question is about the 2009 Lakers though. That team would not even be good.

[Phoenix]

The OP's question is about the 2009 Lakers though. That team would not even be good.

I skimmed through his OP and didn't see any specific arguments about the 2009 Lakers. I'll read it again....in any case I've made my comments about Kobe/Gasol on their own merits. The 2009 team isn't designed for 2024 NBA basketball, if that's the core sentiment being argued ( and again, I must have missed it in the OP).

[Phoenix]

The main reference I see to the 2009 Lakers is this:

'They also have the personnel to increase their 3PA if needed.'

Which I assume he's saying the 2009 Lakers personnel could scale their games to 2024 basketball. Otherwise I don't see where the core of the conversation( at least in the OP) is expressly centered on 'how good would the 2009 Lakers be in 2024?' I don't get the sense that was the main purpose of the thread.

If it is the intent, the title should probably better reflect that as opposed to singling out how good Kobe and Gasol would be today. ' How good would the 2009 Lakers be today' as a thread title and supporting OP speaking specifically to that question wouldn't leave wiggle room for misinterpretation.

[SouBeachTalents]

I'm genuinely curious, which championship teams since 2010 would you guys pick the Kobe/Pau Lakers to beat?

[tontoz]

I just looked it up fellas because I knew what some of you cats were saying didn't add up in regards to the 3pt spacing of those Laker teams.

Look at Trevor Arizas playoff splits from 2009.

https://i.postimg.cc/8Ck8hqmf/Screenshot-20240905-125742-Chrome.jpg

He shot 50+% on average from deep. Best of his career... on absolute fire. And Derek Fisher played all 82 games that year and he shot 40% from 3pt range.

This is direct proof that LAs role players could shoot 3s and space the floor. Now the question is could today's champions with their weak defensive frontcourts contain their 2pt scoring in the triangle system.

We haven't seen this point addressed yet.




Trevor's 3 pt shooting during the Lakers title run was a total outlier. He shot 25% in the playoffs the season before. He shot 33% during the regular season in 2008-09.

In spite of his career best 3 pt shooting he still only made 1.7 3s per game in the playoffs. He was a slow release catch and shoot player. He was not a guy who could scale up his 3s. He couldn't shoot 3s off the dribble at all.

His first season with the Wizards he shot 36.4% from 3 which was his career high by far, thanks to Wall setting him up for easy looks. He never even shot 34% prior to that.

[Phoenix]

I'm genuinely curious, which championship teams since 2010 would you guys pick the Kobe/Pau Lakers to beat?

I couldn't make strong arguments for anyone after 2011. Mayyyybe the 2012 Heat? I don't see them beating the 2014 Spurs, 2013 Heat, definitely not the Warriors. 2016 Cavs...nope but could go 7 maybe(I'm not sure why I feel that way). 2019 Raptors...nope. 2019 Kawhi vs 2010 Kobe is a push(maybe even slight edge to Kawhi) but I'm definitely taking the rest of the Raptors roster. 2021 Bucks? Alot of health related luck went into their run. The Nuggets were 26th in 3PA and still took 12 more than the Lakers. It really just comes down to the X and Os not being enough to balance out the gulf in 3s taken, and/or huge gaps in overall firepower.

[SouBeachTalents]

I couldn't make strong arguments for anyone after 2011. Mayyyybe the 2012 Heat? I don't see them beating the 2014 Spurs, 2013 Heat, definitely not the Warriors. 2016 Cavs...nope but could go 7 maybe(I'm not sure why I feel that way). 2019 Raptors...nope. 2019 Kawhi vs 2010 Kobe is a push(maybe even slight edge to Kawhi) but I'm definitely taking the rest of the Raptors roster. 2021 Bucks? Alot of health related luck went into their run. The Nuggets were 26th in 3PA and still took 12 more than the Lakers. It really just comes down to the X and Os not being enough to balance out the gulf in 3s taken, and/or huge gaps in overall firepower.
Despite the thrashing they gave them in 2011, I'd pick them to beat Dallas. That Lakers team was running on fumes, and Kobe/Pau played like shells of themselves.

I actually feel the opposite about Miami, I think they'd have a better shot at the 2013 Heat than they would 2012. Hibbert absolutely destroyed them in 2013, I shudder to think what the Lakers frontline would do to them, plus that version of Wade was far worse.

I also think they'd give the Cavs a run for their money. Similarly to Miami, I think their frontcourt poses a potential matchup problem for Cleveland.

I think they'd have a solid shot against the Bucks as well. I think their frontcourt personnel would potentially cause problems for Giannis, as he would not be able to run downhill towards the basket with ease like he does against current teams.

Gun to my head, I'd probably still pick the latter 3 teams to beat them, but I think those are the matchups they'd be the most competitive in. The rest of the teams I'd pick to beat the Lakers.

[Phoenix]

Despite the thrashing they gave them in 2011, I'd pick them to beat Dallas. That Lakers team was running on fumes, and Kobe/Pau played like shells of themselves.

I actually feel the opposite about Miami, I think they'd have a better shot at the 2013 Heat than they would 2012. Hibbert absolutely destroyed them in 2013, I shudder to think what the Lakers frontline would do to them, plus that version of Wade was far worse.

I also think they'd give the Cavs a run for their money. Similarly to Miami, I think their frontcourt poses a potential matchup problem for Cleveland.

I think they'd have a solid shot against the Bucks as well. I think their frontcourt personnel would potentially cause problems for Giannis, as he would not be able to run downhill towards the basket with ease like he does against current teams.

Gun to my head, I'd probably still pick the latter 3 teams to beat them, but I think those are the matchups they'd be the most competitive in. The rest of the teams I'd pick to beat the Lakers.

Yeah this is a good point. Wade wasn't peak but still all-nba level in 2012. I was thinking moreso the roster around them was better but yeah, that may not be enough to make up for Wade's dropoff in 2013.

[RRR3]

Wade was pretty badly hurt the entire 2013 playoffs, while he had declined he was still way better (when healthy) than he played in those playoffs.

[Charlie Sheen]

Lamar Odom was a matchup nightmare 15 years ago. He could rebound and defend the rim better than guards and shoot the 3 better than traditional bigs, Players with the combination of his size and skillset are not nearly as rare in the modern game and they have improved.

[ShawkFactory]

The 2013 Heat team gets a lot of shine and rightfully so, as Wade was still very good and Bron was arguably at his peak but that was definitely a flawed team. They were literally dead last in rebounding and bottom 5 in all of the rebounding percentages. They could be very susceptible to a team with a really good frontcourt like the Lakers had. The 09 team in particular would have a good shot.

[tpols]

Trevor's 3 pt shooting during the Lakers title run was a total outlier. He shot 25% in the playoffs the season before. He shot 33% during the regular season in 2008-09.

In spite of his career best 3 pt shooting he still only made 1.7 3s per game in the playoffs. He was a slow release catch and shoot player. He was not a guy who could scale up his 3s. He couldn't shoot 3s off the dribble at all.

His first season with the Wizards he shot 36.4% from 3 which was his career high by far, thanks to Wall setting him up for easy looks. He never even shot 34% prior to that.


You can't just discount the fact that Ariza shot 50+% from 3 in the 2009 playoffs or Derek Fisher shot 40% from 3 over the 82 game regular season and 44% from deep in the 2009 NBA Finals. Sorry bud. Fluke or not it happened.

You can't say the Kobe Pau Odom Laker champions role players couldn't shoot from 3 when they factually lit it up from 3 in their run. We've got the receipts.

And part of it was probably due to the Lakers elite triangle system which had expert ball movement, chemistry and top assist ranks. Ariza actually shot way better with Kobe and Pau in the triangle than he ever did even with Harden in 2018's small ball era where he bricked vs the warriors in the WCFs shooting only 20% from 3. And that was on a modern 3pt spam squad.

[tontoz]

You can't just discount the fact that Ariza shot 50+% from 3 in the 2009 playoffs or Derek Fisher shot 40% from 3 over the 82 game regular season and 44% from deep in the 2009 NBA Finals. Sorry bud. Fluke or not it happened.

You can't say the Kobe Pau Odom Laker champions role players couldn't shoot from 3 when they factually lit it up from 3 in their run. We've got the receipts.

And part of it was probably due to the Lakers elite triangle system which had expert ball movement, chemistry and top assist ranks. Ariza actually shot way better with Kobe and Pau in the triangle than he ever did even with Harden in 2018's small ball era where he bricked vs the warriors in the WCFs shooting only 20% from 3. And that was on a modern 3pt spam squad.



I didn't even mention Fisher who was the only good 3 pt shooter in their starting lineup. Funny how you ignore that Ariza shot 25% in the playoffs the season before. Whenever you are looking at small sample sizes the results aren't that reliable. For his career Ariza shot 36.5% from 3 in the playoffs on 4 attempts per game. *yawn*

And even with his outlier shooting during their title run Ariza averaged 1.7 made 3s per game. That isn't moving the needle.

The Lakers made only 7 threes per game during their title run. I wouldn't call that "lighting it up".:lol

[AlternativeAcc.]

What does "just as good" even mean? We all know they were incredibly stacked relative to their competition, but in today's NBA they'd be just another tier 2 competitive team.

They're not beating the Celtics or Nuggets, and probably not OKC, Dallas, Minny, or Milwaukee.


You think they'd be just as good relative to the competition of today when this is a Kobe/Pau equivalent duo or better on every team, with better role players to boot?

Okay.

[warriorfan]

I remember ariza as an athletic 3 and D guy. Surprised to see he shot as few. Looking at his basketball reference he did end up as a 35% shooter. His percentage increased with increased volume it looks like. @3ball :lol

[Im Still Ballin]

I love a thread like this because it exposes bad-faith arguments about the modern game. You have a poor understanding of basketball if your argument boils down to shooting and spacing. Of course, these individuals are going to completely ignore the evidence provided in the OP.

Not enough shooting? 2018-19 SAS had a far inferior version of Kobe and Pau and had a top-three half-court offense and third-best playoff offense. They shot a minuscule 6.9% more threes in the regular season. 21.7% 3PAr vs. 28.6% 3PAr. There was only a 0.4% difference in the playoffs. 22.9% 3PAr vs. 23.3% 3PAr.

Are we really going to boil it all down to that? That differential would be covered by a couple of role players stepping to the side instead of forward on closeouts. Not that it'd even be a make-or-break thing. Because LA was a way, way better offensive rebounding team. And ORB% is another point in the OP many have just outright ignored...

And that's not even talking about 2018-19 SAS' weak defense and how it limited transition/early offense and its overall ORtg. The Kobe-Pau LA were elite on defense.

[SouBeachTalents]

Your points are taken regarding the statistics you provided, but the Spurs were the 7 seed in 2019, finished 18th in ppg and lost in the first round, so I'm not so sure that's the best example you could use to try to back your argument. And claiming they were the third best playoff offense when they played 7 games seems rather disingenuous :lol

[Im Still Ballin]

Your points are taken regarding the statistics you provided, but the Spurs were the 7 seed in 2019, finished 18th in ppg and lost in the first round, so I'm not so sure that's the best example you could use to try to back your argument.

Because of its defense. Obviously...

19th in DRtg (+0.8 rDRtg). They were 29th in opponent turnover percentage—11.0% D-TOV (-1.4 rD-TOV). San Antonio's defense did its offense absolutely zero favors.


And claiming they were the third best playoff offense when they played 7 games seems rather disingenuous :lol

I understand the sentiment. The playoffs are always going to be limited when it comes to sample size. Even for the teams that go all the way. And yet we extrapolate on a limited amount of postseason games all the time. But if the data generally aligns with the 82 games of the regular season? There's probably something there.

If you want, you can add the 2016-17 Spurs (16 games played; 4th-ranked playoff ORtg (+2.1 playoff-adjusted rORtg); 15th/16 in 3PAr (.282) [-6.6 playoff-adjusted r3PAr]).

Or the 2015-16 Spurs (10 games played; 3rd-ranked playoff ORtg (+4.3 playoff-adjusted rORtg); 13th/16 in 3PAr (.232) [-7.8 playoff-adjusted r3PAr]).

And I'm sure at this point you'll say something akin to "the modern game started in 2020!" or another. Some arbitrary point where the NBA stepped out of the stone age.

[ILLsmak]

Even a team from 2009 would be utterly shell-shocked by modern three point shooting. Assuming Tatum isn't hampered by hero-worship the Celtics would beat them 4-1, the one loses being the game where the team as a hole shots terribly and maybe Kobe blows up. But the Celtics would have done of the best personnel to guard him anyone ever has. You beat the Celtics either with great scoring bruising big or an elite night of three point shooting. Kobe-Pau Lakers couldn't come with either. Bryant might be able to hero ball them to one win but Brown Holiday and Tatum are a rough trio to go through for any wing and then they have KP behind them (most nights).

Only because they might not be able to shoot right themselves. Pau and Bynum is a ridiculous line up vs anyone. It was ridiculous back then. Just like TD and Robinson would also be very hard to deal with. Twolves are running KAT and Gobert. Tatum would be BBQ'd off the floor. The whole Cs team would be unable to compete with that squad. Why? Because nobody could stop Kobe from getting inside and shooting, and when he missed, they would reb.

Porzingis is a crazy player, but he can't guard Pau or Bynum and keep them off the glass, imo, especially not if he has to move to contest Kobe. However, there is a lack of shooting in the LAL lineup, for sure.

I think the Cs were a one time thing. They are gonna be able to compete with anyone due to their line up, but historically, I don't think they beat a lot of championship teams. Their team is deeply flawed considering its talent level. You'd just hope you could leave LAL open and they'd miss. They can't deal with Odom and Kobe.

Cs lost a game to the Mavs. It's possible they could win a series with exceptional play/shooting, but I'd be shocked if they won it easily. More likely, they would get ground out. The ups and downs of modern shooting teams would cause them to lose. Remember, the Cs did a lot of games of bricking in the Finals. I think they gotta shoot close to 40% cuz they aren't gonna get offensive rebs, either.

If you wanna switch up the lineup and try rotating people out, put Porzingis at PF and Brown/Tatum at the wings, that would be nice. They could play small for spot moments, but I don't think they could run the whole game with Tatum at PF.

It'd be fun to see, though, obviously we dunno. I just have a hunch. But yea the Cs aren't the team I am using to prove that 09 Lakers wouldn't be as good as today, plus they were a better team compared to their peers than LAL was then, especially considering Porzingis missed a decent chunk of time. So, in theory, they SHOULD be winning, but I don't think they would.

-Smak

[ILLsmak]

You think they'd be just as good relative to the competition of today when this is a Kobe/Pau equivalent duo or better on every team, with better role players to boot?




Wat, who is as good as Kobe? Pau is good enough that he makes the duo better. It's not like you can take one guy who is kinda better than Pau and another guy who is kinda worse than Kobe and it's equal.

I'm thinking... ANT / KAT? Maxey Embiid? I'm thinking fuccouttahere, brother.

You need to start with an atg SG and then add a big who complements him. There are people you could argue as ATG bigs, but it's not the same. You put the ball in Kobe's hands in this nba, and it would be crazy. Like half of the high impact players who have enough experience to win rings are over the hill atm.

-Smak

[Real Men Wear Green]

Only because they might not be able to shoot right themselves. Pau and Bynum is a ridiculous line up vs anyone. It was ridiculous back then. Just like TD and Robinson would also be very hard to deal with. Twolves are running KAT and Gobert. Tatum would be BBQ'd off the floor. The whole Cs team would be unable to compete with that squad. Why? Because nobody could stop Kobe from getting inside and shooting, and when he missed, they would reb. Tatum had been starting power forward for two years now. If being matched up with a big was a problem someone would have exploited it and he wouldn't have averaged 9.7 rebounds in the playoffs. One of the keys to the Celtics that you may not be aware of is that Tatum has legit pf size. The NBA doesn't bother updating player measurements after the rookie year but Tatum is 6'9 or 6'10 and 240. There's really only 4 guys you would be worried about putting him on (Embiid, Jokic, Giannis,Williamson...Edey is likely to be a fifth). He wouldn't be good on Bynum but you could put him in Gasol. And he will be much better at guarding Bynum or Gasol than they will be at guarding him. Kobe Bryant was a great player but Holiday Brown and Tatum are all great defending wings. Meanwhile the Celtics are shooting 30 threes and blowing the Lakers off the floor. The Warriors and other teams forced the evolution of basketball. You are acting like the game didn't evolve for a reason.


Porzingis is a crazy player, but he can't guard Pau or Bynum and keep them off the glass, imo, especially not if he has to move to contest Kobe. However, there is a lack of shooting in the LAL lineup, for sure.We saw Paul Pierce Ray and Tony Allen defend Bryant solidly. Brown Tatum and Holliday are no worse.


I think the Cs were a one time thing. They are gonna be able to compete with anyone due to their line up, but historically, I don't think they beat a lot of championship teams. Their team is deeply flawed considering its talent level. You'd just hope you could leave LAL open and they'd miss. They can't deal with Odom and Kobe. "Deeply flawed?" Please explain that because they're is no justification for that statement at all.


Cs lost a game to the Mavs. It's possible they could win a series with exceptional play/shooting, but I'd be shocked if they won it easily. More likely, they would get ground out. The ups and downs of modern shooting teams would cause them to lose. Remember, the Cs did a lot of games of bricking in the Finals. I think they gotta shoot close to 40% cuz they aren't gonna get offensive rebs, either. 16-3 is one of the greatest postseason records of all time. A 4-1 finals win is dominant. That's an 80% win rate against the best team in the opposing conference. 80% win rate in the regular season is...64 wins. And actually closer to 65.


If you wanna switch up the lineup and try rotating people out, put Porzingis at PF and Brown/Tatum at the wings, that would be nice. They could play small for spot moments, but I don't think they could run the whole game withdrew Tatumat PF. Again they've been doing it for two years. You don't seem to know how big Tatum actually is.

[tpols]

Saying Tatum could guard Pau or Bynum in the low post is one of the most delusional things I've ever seen posted on this forum.

[tpols]

Only because they might not be able to shoot right themselves. Pau and Bynum is a ridiculous line up vs anyone. It was ridiculous back then. Just like TD and Robinson would also be very hard to deal with. Twolves are running KAT and Gobert. Tatum would be BBQ'd off the floor. The whole Cs team would be unable to compete with that squad. Why? Because nobody could stop Kobe from getting inside and shooting, and when he missed, they would reb.

Porzingis is a crazy player, but he can't guard Pau or Bynum and keep them off the glass, imo, especially not if he has to move to contest Kobe. However, there is a lack of shooting in the LAL lineup, for sure.

I think the Cs were a one time thing. They are gonna be able to compete with anyone due to their line up, but historically, I don't think they beat a lot of championship teams. Their team is deeply flawed considering its talent level. You'd just hope you could leave LAL open and they'd miss. They can't deal with Odom and Kobe.

Cs lost a game to the Mavs. It's possible they could win a series with exceptional play/shooting, but I'd be shocked if they won it easily. More likely, they would get ground out. The ups and downs of modern shooting teams would cause them to lose. Remember, the Cs did a lot of games of bricking in the Finals. I think they gotta shoot close to 40% cuz they aren't gonna get offensive rebs, either.

If you wanna switch up the lineup and try rotating people out, put Porzingis at PF and Brown/Tatum at the wings, that would be nice. They could play small for spot moments, but I don't think they could run the whole game with Tatum at PF.

It'd be fun to see, though, obviously we dunno. I just have a hunch. But yea the Cs aren't the team I am using to prove that 09 Lakers wouldn't be as good as today, plus they were a better team compared to their peers than LAL was then, especially considering Porzingis missed a decent chunk of time. So, in theory, they SHOULD be winning, but I don't think they would.

-Smak

Yup. The Celtics simply don't have the defensive personel at all to guard the Lakers frontcourt with a gimpy injured Zingis and old undersized Horford. They basically have no sturdy big men. And with how we seen Tatum bricking a lot of his shots, you know Kobe would outproduce him by a lot.

What it comes down to is the Lakers 2pt and paint dominance would be a certainty. If their role players get hot from 3 like in the 2009 run that would just be a cherry on top. Where as Boston is completely at the mercy and variance of their 3pt spam because their midrange game is mediocre and they wouldn't be doing squat at the rim.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Saying Tatum could guard Pau or Bynum in the low post is one of the most delusional things I've ever seen posted on this forum.

He guarded Myles Turner and Bam Adebayo just this postseason. He had been the starting power forward for the last two years. Are you paying any attention at all?

[tpols]

He guarded Myles Turner and Bam Adebayo just this postseason. He had been the starting power forward for the last two years. Are you paying any attention at all?

Neither of those guys are even remotely as skilled offensively in the low post as Pau and Bam in particular is nowhere near as long and tall as Pau. Turner isn't even a gifted offensive player either... he's known for his defense mostly. Gasol would be getting automatic buckets on Tatum all game long. That's an absurd mismatch.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Neither of those guys are even remotely as skilled offensively in the low post as Pau and Bam in particular is nowhere near as long and tall as Pau. Turner isn't even a gifted offensive player either... he's known for his defense mostly. Gasol would be getting automatic buckets on Tatum all game long. That's an absurd mismatch.

Adebayo averaged 19 points, same as Gasol. And it wasn't just jumpers, he pays. Tatum isn't going to shut him down but he would defend Gasol as competently as most power forward. But on the other end how is Gasol going to cover a perimeter player that has averaged 30? That year out is one of the reasons why the Celtics are a great team, because they're are a lot more guys that Tatum can guard than they're are guys that can guard Tatum.

[tontoz]

:oldlol: @ the C's being "deeply flawed". They had the best record in the league by far in spite of chillin at times. They have strong 2 way players throughout their lineup.

How many ECF's have they played in the last few years? I lost count.

[tpols]

Bam was measured @ 6'8 barefoot at the combine. Pau Gasol was a true 7 footer. And not only that, Bam is not a low post guy. Miami runs him in the pick and pop and roll all day. While the strongest part of Paus game was his low post footwork, hook shots, craftiness and passing. He was like a diet Kevin McHale in that regard. Bam and Paus styles and size are so far apart it makes 0 sense to equivocate their games.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Bam was measured @ 6'8 barefoot at the combine. Pau Gasol was a true 7 footer. And not only that, Bam is not a low post guy. Miami runs him in the pick and pop and roll all day. While the strongest part of Paus game was his low post footwork, hook shots, craftiness and passing. He was like a diet Kevin McHale in that regard. Bam and Paus styles and size are so far apart it makes 0 sense to equivocate their games.

And yet Gasol averaged 19 points. Tatum is not smaller than the average pf Gasol faced. But on the other end Gasol never had to guard elite scoring wings. He's literally never done it his entire career. Tatum meanwhile has been defending 4s for the last two years. The mismatch is definitely in the Celtics favor, even more so considering that the Laker offense is going to run through Kobe not Gasol.

[Im Still Ballin]

Pau Gasol led the league in post-up efficiency in 2008-09 with 1.034 points per play. I'm not sure what the league average was but it was considerably less than today. I imagine, relatively speaking, that's like 1.10-1.15+ ppp in today's league.

Factoring in post-up scoring efficiency, diversity, range, and passing, Jokic is the best modern comparison. Even if he's not as good he was still a handful.

[Real Men Wear Green]

He's nowhere near Jokic's level offensively. Not close in scoring average or assists per game. Also doesn't have Jokic's bill to take it to the Celtics as a physical presence.

[Im Still Ballin]

Did you think they are? Because I never said that.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Did you think they are? Because I never said that.
You said Jokic was the best modern comparison. I pointed out why that isn't that relevant.

[Im Still Ballin]

2008-09 Pau Gasol Regular season: (81 games)

3-10 feet: 52.3% FG (29.5% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 41.2% FG and 12.4% of FGAs]; Pau shot 26.9% above league average efficiency
10-16 feet: 49.2% FG (17.5% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 39.5% FG and 11.1% of FGAs]; Pau shot 24.6% above league average efficiency

2022-23 Nikola Jokic Regular season: (69 games)

3-10 feet: 64.3% FG (41.4% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 45.4% FG and 20.6% of FGAs]; Nikola shot 41.6% above league average efficiency
10-16 feet: 50.0% FG (9.2% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 44.7% FG and 9.6% of FGAs]; Nikola shot 11.9% above league average efficiency

[Im Still Ballin]

You said Jokic was the best modern comparison. I pointed out why that isn't that relevant.

Can you read? ... In the post. There's no one who's a better comparison in the game today when you break down all the elements of post-up play. Doesn't mean he's as good. Just that he's stylistically most comparable.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Can you read? ... In the post. There's no one who's a better comparison in the game today when you break down all the elements of post-up play. Doesn't mean he's as good. Just that he's stylistically most comparable.

And I pointed out why that isn't relevant. "Can you read?"

[Im Still Ballin]

2008-09 Pau Gasol PLAYOFFS: (23 games)

3-10 feet: 56.5% FG (30.8% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 41.2% FG and 12.4% of FGAs]; Pau shot 37.1% above league average efficiency
10-16 feet: 46.3% FG (14.9% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 39.5% FG and 11.1% of FGAs]; Pau shot 17.2% above league average efficiency

2022-23 Nikola Jokic PLAYOFFS: (20 games)

3-10 feet: 56.0% FG (52.2% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 45.4% FG and 20.6% of FGAs]; Nikola shot 23.3% above league average efficiency
10-16 feet: 47.5% FG (9.7% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 44.7% FG and 9.6% of FGAs]; Nikola shot 6.3% above league average efficiency

[Im Still Ballin]

And I pointed out why that isn't relevant. "Can you read?"

You said offensively. I said exclusively post-up play. Those are not the same things.

[Real Men Wear Green]

You said offensively. I said exclusively post-up play. Those are not the same things.

And still not relevant. Feel free to have the last word.

[Im Still Ballin]

2008-09 Pau Gasol Regular season: (81 games)

3-10 feet: 52.3% FG (29.5% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 41.2% FG and 12.4% of FGAs]; Pau shot 26.9% above league average efficiency
10-16 feet: 49.2% FG (17.5% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 39.5% FG and 11.1% of FGAs]; Pau shot 24.6% above league average efficiency

2022-23 Nikola Jokic Regular season: (69 games)

3-10 feet: 64.3% FG (41.4% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 45.4% FG and 20.6% of FGAs]; Nikola shot 41.6% above league average efficiency
10-16 feet: 50.0% FG (9.2% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 44.7% FG and 9.6% of FGAs]; Nikola shot 11.9% above league average efficiency


2008-09 Pau Gasol PLAYOFFS: (23 games)

3-10 feet: 56.5% FG (30.8% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 41.2% FG and 12.4% of FGAs]; Pau shot 37.1% above league average efficiency
10-16 feet: 46.3% FG (14.9% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 39.5% FG and 11.1% of FGAs]; Pau shot 17.2% above league average efficiency

2022-23 Nikola Jokic PLAYOFFS: (20 games)

3-10 feet: 56.0% FG (52.2% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 45.4% FG and 20.6% of FGAs]; Nikola shot 23.3% above league average efficiency
10-16 feet: 47.5% FG (9.7% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 44.7% FG and 9.6% of FGAs]; Nikola shot 6.3% above league average efficiency

Jason Tatum is a good defender and Pau was known to be soft at times. But I think Gasol from 2008 to 2010 or 2011 is just too much size and skill for him. LA's frontcourt was a league-best powerhouse for a reason.

[Im Still Ballin]

And still not relevant. Feel free to have the last word.

You are really childish for a moderator. Christ.

[Im Still Ballin]

Here's a great 2008-09 season highlight video. He's being guarded by guys like Kenyon Martin, Chris Andersen, Marcus Camby, Chris Kaman, Luis Scola, Erick Dampier, Dirk Nowitzki, etc. I'm only a few minutes in but.. yeah, just way too big and skilled for Jason.

Tatum is only 6'8" barefoot with a 6'11" wingspan and an 8'10.5" standing reach. If I'm not mistaken, Gasol was a legit 7' barefoot with a 7'6" to 7'7" wingspan. And his standing reach looks really good per the game footage; easily more than Jokic's 9'3". Probably 9'5" to 9'7". Hell, look at this dunk from Gasol. Barely had to jump:

https://i.ibb.co/pbCQvXW/92mor0.gif

FYI: Bam is 6'8.75" barefoot with a 7'2.75" wingspan and a 9'0" standing reach. It makes sense that Tatum can guard him given that they're not that far off in functional size.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXd24ggzeKA&ab_channel=Pick%26Roll

[RRR3]

2008-09 Pau Gasol PLAYOFFS: (23 games)

3-10 feet: 56.5% FG (30.8% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 41.2% FG and 12.4% of FGAs]; Pau shot 37.1% above league average efficiency
10-16 feet: 46.3% FG (14.9% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 39.5% FG and 11.1% of FGAs]; Pau shot 17.2% above league average efficiency

2022-23 Nikola Jokic PLAYOFFS: (20 games)

3-10 feet: 56.0% FG (52.2% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 45.4% FG and 20.6% of FGAs]; Nikola shot 23.3% above league average efficiency
10-16 feet: 47.5% FG (9.7% of FGAs); [LEAGUE AVERAGES: 44.7% FG and 9.6% of FGAs]; Nikola shot 6.3% above league average efficiency
Why are you just pretending volume and the way they’re guarded don’t matter? Gasol was playing with prime Kobe Bryant. I like Gasol but pump the brakes.

[tpols]

Here's a great 2008-09 season highlight video. He's being guarded by guys like Kenyon Martin, Chris Andersen, Marcus Camby, Chris Kaman, Luis Scola, Erick Dampier, Dirk Nowitzki, etc. I'm only a few minutes in but.. yeah, just way too big and skilled for Jason.

Tatum is only 6'8" barefoot with a 6'11" wingspan and an 8'10.5" standing reach. If I'm not mistaken, Gasol was a legit 7' barefoot with a 7'6" to 7'7" wingspan. And his standing reach looks really good per the game footage; easily more than Jokic's 9'3". Probably 9'5" to 9'7". Hell, look at this dunk from Gasol. Barely had to jump:

https://i.ibb.co/pbCQvXW/92mor0.gif

FYI: Bam is 6'8.75" barefoot with a 7'2.75" wingspan and a 9'0" standing reach. It makes sense that Tatum can guard him given that they're not that far off in functional size.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXd24ggzeKA&ab_channel=Pick%26Roll


Yea... that kind of solidified things for me. Tatum being able to guard Pau Gasol full time as a starter. Absolute insanity.

People think because he can play the 4 in today's small ball era means he could guard long 7 footers with tremendous post skill in the past. Goes to show some people have no idea what they're talking about. And then there's Bynum and Odom as well. It's crazy.

[RRR3]

Yea... that kind of solidified things for me. Tatum being able to guard Pau Gasol full time as a starter. Absolute insanity.

People think because he can play the 4 in today's small ball era means he could guard long 7 footers with tremendous post skill in the past. Goes to show some people have no idea what they're talking about. And then there's Bynum and Odom as well. It's crazy.
Playing Bynum Odom and Gasol at the same time is suicide in 2024, they'd get obliterated :oldlol:

[ILLsmak]

:oldlol: @ the C's being "deeply flawed". They had the best record in the league by far in spite of chillin at times. They have strong 2 way players throughout their lineup.

How many ECF's have they played in the last few years? I lost count.

Weak era lool. Who is the last ec team that won. Even the west is weak now. They got bodied in 21. They are playing flawed teams as well. Mil is the only possible good team but they have had issues.

I mean flawed on a championship level. Dudes think they are a dynasty. Was a good win tho. It was a perfect storm. They are a reg season team. Def not a benchmark of greatness, or maybe they will continue to win. The nba isn’t gonna be much better next year and i bet they dont win again. And nah i want them to win, but they were flawed with a big line up and its even crazier to have tatum at pf.

-Smak

[tontoz]

Weak era lool. Who is the last ec team that won. Even the west is weak now. They got bodied in 21. They are playing flawed teams as well. Mil is the only possible good team but they have had issues.

I mean flawed on a championship level. Dudes think they are a dynasty. Was a good win tho. It was a perfect storm. They are a reg season team. Def not a benchmark of greatness, or maybe they will continue to win. The nba isn’t gonna be much better next year and i bet they dont win again. And nah i want them to win, but they were flawed with a big line up and its even crazier to have tatum at pf.

-Smak


Your "analysis" is the only thing deeply flawed. Embarrassing.

Boston's top 2 are surely weaker than a lot of championship teams but 3-8 they are stronger than most of them in the last 30 years.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Wat, who is as good as Kobe? Pau is good enough that he makes the duo better. It's not like you can take one guy who is kinda better than Pau and another guy who is kinda worse than Kobe and it's equal.

I'm thinking... ANT / KAT? Maxey Embiid? I'm thinking fuccouttahere, brother.

You need to start with an atg SG and then add a big who complements him. There are people you could argue as ATG bigs, but it's not the same. You put the ball in Kobe's hands in this nba, and it would be crazy. Like half of the high impact players who have enough experience to win rings are over the hill atm.

-Smak

Luka, SGA, Jokic, Giannis...

Every contending team has a dominant duo in today's league.

Kobe/Pau stuck out in late 00s, but wouldn't in 2024.

[Im Still Ballin]

Playing Bynum Odom and Gasol at the same time is suicide in 2024, they'd get obliterated :oldlol:

LA almost never played that lineup back then. What are you talking about? Odom came off the bench. He often started alongside Gasol because Bynum was oft-injured. I don't think that's what Tpols was suggesting.

Looking at the Basketball Reference lineup data, they only played a Bynum-Odom-Gasol lineup in the 2009-10 regular season for 77 minutes and 13 seconds out of 3,966 total minutes (1.95% of the time in 2009-10; 0.65% of the time from 2008-09 to 2010-11) It was +8.2 points per 100 for what it's worth:

https://i.ibb.co/F3B3SQp/KEm-Mu-F6-d.webp

Gasol + Odom and Gasol + Bynum would be the staples as they were back then. With some Ariza and MWP at PF thrown in there depending on the year.

[1987_Lakers]

LA almost never played that lineup back then. What are you talking about? Odom came off the bench. He often started alongside Gasol because Bynum was oft-injured.

This. We were at our best with Gasol & Odom in the lineup & Ariza playing the 3. Artest actually made our team a bit worse, bad fit on offense, Ariza was better.

[RRR3]

LA almost never played that lineup back then. What are you talking about? Odom came off the bench. He often started alongside Gasol because Bynum was oft-injured. I don't think that's what Tpols was suggesting.

Looking at the Basketball Reference lineup data, they only played a Bynum-Odom-Gasol lineup in the 2009-10 regular season for 77 minutes and 13 seconds out of 3,966 total minutes (1.95% of the time in 2009-10; 0.65% of the time from 2008-09 to 2010-11) It was +8.2 points per 100 for what it's worth:

https://i.ibb.co/F3B3SQp/KEm-Mu-F6-d.webp

Gasol + Odom and Gasol + Bynum would be the staples as they were back then. With some Ariza and MWP at PF thrown in there depending on the year.
Fair enough, I didn’t start seriously watching NBA until 2011 playoffs.

Still don’t like two big lineups in todays NBA if neither are a real threat from 3.

[warriorfan]

Fair enough, I didn’t start seriously watching NBA until 2011 playoffs.

Still don’t like two big lineups in todays NBA if neither are a real threat from 3.

then maybe refrain from speaking on shit you don’t know about????


Tbh I was always huge on Odom and Pau but Bynum never did it for me. To me he seemed like the guy who people thought he could tap into this potential but he never did. He had spurts of it but was never consistent, he wasn’t a big player in playoffs or finals. He literally was out of the league very prematurely it seemed after his Lakers stint. I always found the hype of Bynum puzzling. A combo of Laker homers being very optimistic and Kobe haters trying to prop up his cast to tear him down. I never saw Bynum as being anything from my point of view. It is what it is.

[ILLsmak]

Your "analysis" is the only thing deeply flawed. Embarrassing.

Boston's top 2 are surely weaker than a lot of championship teams but 3-8 they are stronger than most of them in the last 30 years.

yea read all my bad takes lol. It's a constant problem. Having a weak 1-2 and strong 3-8 is not the recipe for a dynasty. What teams are coming to mind? The b2b pistons, maybe?

Edit: thought experiment, Bos is locked into a tight game coming down the stretch vs an all time great team, what do they run to get scores? Try to get Porzingis to post vs a 6'6 guy on the pick and roll?


Luka, SGA, Jokic, Giannis...

Every contending team has a dominant duo in today's league.

Kobe/Pau stuck out in late 00s, but wouldn't in 2024.

Those guys are not duos? And only two of them are guards like Kobe. Like I said it has to be guard w/ complementary big, and if you take a 'better big' and a 'worse guard,' it doesn't work because the game is much different. So Jokic and Giannis are really good, but they are not on the wing. Kobe is universally regarded as the best 1 on 1 player in history, and that's even to people who hate him (I don't hate him, but I dislike his play style,) he would shit on everyone. The only way they could do anything is to hope that LAL just kept bricking. Which, as i said, could be an issue, but I think in a series, it would be fine.

-Smak

[tontoz]

There aren't many teams that qualify as a dynasty. Other than the warriors there are the Lakers and the Spurs since the bulls broke up.

Boston was first in offensive efficiency and 3rd in defense. They have 2 way players throughout their rotation. The strength of their roster is the reason they were able to win without a MVP caliber player.

Dallas rolled minny and looked like a real threat to win the Finals. Boston just punked them.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Since 2020 Tatum has the most playoff points and is second in assists and rebounds. Jaylen Brown followed the biggest defensive play of the postseason with the biggest shot of the postseason in Game 1 vs Indiana to save the Celtics. There is basically nothing the Celtics could have done to change minds if they win 64 games in the regular season, go 16-3 in the postseason, and we still have people talking about "thought experiment." The rest of the NBA fails to test them and you act like that means they failed the test when in reality they were just a level above everyone else. Being the best team is not a fatal flaw.

Before the finals we had a thread on here talking about how Doncic could be the greatest clutch playoff performer ever or some such dumb shit...I didn't agree but he was definitely playing some great basketball. Had Dallas won people would be talking about what a great do Irving and Doncic were. But when the Celtics shut them down with JB routinely wearing Doncic out in the fourth you just talk about what a weak do Tatum and Brown are. Whatever. The lesson is about to be repeated.

[1987_Lakers]

then maybe refrain from speaking on shit you don’t know about????


Tbh I was always huge on Odom and Pau but Bynum never did it for me. To me he seemed like the guy who people thought he could tap into this potential but he never did. He had spurts of it but was never consistent, he wasn’t a big player in playoffs or finals. He literally was out of the league very prematurely it seemed after his Lakers stint. I always found the hype of Bynum puzzling. A combo of Laker homers being very optimistic and Kobe haters trying to prop up his cast to tear him down. I never saw Bynum as being anything from my point of view. It is what it is.

He did have one season where he legit looked like the best offensive center in the league in 2012. He had a very nice touch around the rim, although I could tell the fit between Bynum & Gasol was kinda weird that year. Gasol/Odom pair was better. Bynum was a super talented dude, but just didn't care too much about basketball and was often injured.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzmjolNHE28

[tpols]

then maybe refrain from speaking on shit you don’t know about????


Tbh I was always huge on Odom and Pau but Bynum never did it for me. To me he seemed like the guy who people thought he could tap into this potential but he never did. He had spurts of it but was never consistent, he wasn’t a big player in playoffs or finals. He literally was out of the league very prematurely it seemed after his Lakers stint. I always found the hype of Bynum puzzling. A combo of Laker homers being very optimistic and Kobe haters trying to prop up his cast to tear him down. I never saw Bynum as being anything from my point of view. It is what it is.


Bynum had crazy soft touch for how huge he was. He was a true giant with finesse on the low block.

I still remember I joined ISH during the 2010 NBA Finals and everybody was saying Boston would lose Game 7 because Perkins had been declared out, which meant LA could bully the paint. Kobe and Pau shot a combined 12/42, and they still won because they dominated the boards. Kobe had 15 rebounds and Pau had 18. That's nuts.

The funniest thing to me though is people thinking Jayson ****ing Tatum would solve that paint domination. :oldlol: It wasn't even just Pau, Bynum, and Odom. Kobe was pulling boards down at a crazy level and Artest was beating the shit out of guys while boxing out since he kind of moves naturally like a bull in a China shop.

In games where they weren't on fire from 3, Boston would be getting their cheeks clapped. And we've seen Tatum brick a million 3s in the Finals so that's going to be tough to cover.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Bynum had crazy soft touch for how huge he was. He was a true giant with finesse on the low block.

I still remember I joined ISH during the 2010 NBA Finals and everybody was saying Boston would lose Game 7 because Perkins had been declared out, which meant LA could bully the paint. Kobe and Pau shot a combined 12/42, and they still won because they dominated the boards. Kobe had 15 rebounds and Pau had 18. That's nuts.

The funniest thing to me though is people thinking Jayson ****ing Tatum would solve that paint domination. :oldlol: It wasn't even just Pau, Bynum, and Odom. Kobe was pulling boards down at a crazy level and Artest was beating the shit out of guys while boxing out since he kind of moves naturally like a bull in a China shop.

In games where they weren't on fire from 3, Boston would be getting their cheeks clapped. And we've seen Tatum brick a million 3s in the Finals so that's going to be tough to cover.
Tatum is second in playoff rebounds since 2020. He averaged over 8 in the regular season and 9.7 in the playoffs. He has been playing power forward for the last two years. You ignore these facts because you;re an idiot.

[warriorfan]

RMWG shrieking wildly because people brought up Tatum would be undersized going against Pau

What a weird guy :lol

[ILLsmak]

There aren't many teams that qualify as a dynasty. Other than the warriors there are the Lakers and the Spurs since the bulls broke up.

Boston was first in offensive efficiency and 3rd in defense. They have 2 way players throughout their rotation. The strength of their roster is the reason they were able to win without a MVP caliber player.

Dallas rolled minny and looked like a real threat to win the Finals. Boston just punked them.

He threw the league for a loop with how he did things, but LeBron was a dynasty. ThatÂ’s why the gap looks so big; he kept moving and building the same team as best in league. Talk about ecf appearances. Kobe LAL went b2b and lost to Cs, a Cs team that was actually all time and capable of winning more than one. I am saying I donÂ’t think Bos wins another without changes. They do have insane talent and thatÂ’s why I call them flawed. Their talent is way more than their ability as a team.

ItÂ’s likeÂ… Bos has 3 (shuda maybe had 4) team usa guysÂ… but two were role players. They are outstanding on defense, but if they have one weakness, it would be inside.

They should win again because like I said nba is transitioning. Young stars are growing up. I moved from Cs to Minny last years. I don’t have a team, but I wanted Cs to win cuz they were close and seemed like they had a lot of the types of players I support, however, I’ve seen em shit too many times. Same movie. Their path was weird last year. Glad they got one. I’m fully done supporting them now until they show me some reason they deserve it. They could win again, and I understand it’s not hard to take the field, but my ‘they won’t’ is different. It’s a minority opinion, but I am not as high on them as experts and analytics… and I’ve seen them play in playoffs a lot.

I already did, but I donÂ’t wanna make this about that. My point was simply thatÂ’s not the team you use to disprove Kobe lakers. Yeah they are elite with wing D, but thatÂ’s why s tier talent like kobe is so important, you canÂ’t really **** w them.

Edit: ****in took forever to thumb this post then it logged me out n ****ed the apostrophes.

-Smak

[tpols]

Tatum is second in playoff rebounds since 2020. He averaged over 8 in the regular season and 9.7 in the playoffs. He has been playing power forward for the last two years. You ignore these facts because you;re an idiot.

No... let's be clear here.

You are demonstrating a paltry basketball IQ by claiming Tatum could bang with a front court of Pau / Odom / Bynum / Artest. Nobody cares what he averages in a small ball era facing tiny 6'8 PFs and C's.

You are demonstrating a basic lack of understanding for the most fundamental principle we have here on earth. Physics and how mass works. Im trying to think of a way to explain it. How big things can move little things. Does that work?

This is frankly quite appalling since you've had to experience how this stuff operates in every other aspect of life.

I'm somewhat amazed. :lol

[Real Men Wear Green]

No... let's be clear here.

You are demonstrating a paltry basketball IQ by claiming Tatum could bang with a front court of Pau / Odom / Bynum / Artest. Nobody cares what he averages in a small ball era facing tiny 6'8 PFs and C's.

You are demonstrating a basic lack of understanding for the most fundamental principle we have here on earth. Physics and how mass works. Im trying to think of a way to explain it. How big things can move little things. Does that work?

This is frankly quite appalling since you've had to experience how this stuff operates in every other aspect of life.

I'm somewhat amazed. :lolYou demonstrate paltry IQ every time you type. Last time you were talking about how the Mavs would "clap tjose cheeks" and what happened? You were completelyt wrong. And why was your analysis wrong? Because your an idiot, so you can shut the **** up with your dumb ass opinions.

[RRR3]

Any problems Tatum has guarding one of the Lakers bigs is more than mitigated by him destroying them on the other end. Seriously imagine Pau or Bynum trying guard Tatum :roll:

[tpols]

Any problems Tatum has guarding one of the Lakers bigs is more than mitigated by him destroying them on the other end. Seriously imagine Pau or Bynum trying guard Tatum :roll:

That's the correct argument to use. You admitted you never watched the NBA until 2011. And in the 2011 playoffs Chris Paul put on a clinic on how to manipulate the PnR with Pau and Bynum guarding him in mismatches to get open iso jumpers and nail them. But they weren't all 3s.

Tatum and Brown against a Luka and Kyrie defensive backcourt this year shot 23% and 26% from 3pt range in the 2024 NBA Finals.

They were ass from long distance. Which makes the argument that 3pt shooting is the end all be all in this debate that more hilarious. :lol

[AlternativeAcc.]

yea read all my bad takes lol. It's a constant problem. Having a weak 1-2 and strong 3-8 is not the recipe for a dynasty. What teams are coming to mind? The b2b pistons, maybe?

Edit: thought experiment, Bos is locked into a tight game coming down the stretch vs an all time great team, what do they run to get scores? Try to get Porzingis to post vs a 6'6 guy on the pick and roll?



Those guys are not duos? And only two of them are guards like Kobe. Like I said it has to be guard w/ complementary big, and if you take a 'better big' and a 'worse guard,' it doesn't work because the game is much different. So Jokic and Giannis are really good, but they are not on the wing. Kobe is universally regarded as the best 1 on 1 player in history, and that's even to people who hate him (I don't hate him, but I dislike his play style,) he would shit on everyone. The only way they could do anything is to hope that LAL just kept bricking. Which, as i said, could be an issue, but I think in a series, it would be fine.

-Smak

Giannis has Lillard, Luka had Kyrie, Jokic has Murray

The point is that in 09, the Kobe/Pau tandem was by far the best in the NBA.

Lebron had Mo Williams.. Wade had Haslem... Dwight had Nelson.

Lakers had by far the best tandem and the best role players in the late 00s. They were stacked for their time but wouldn't be in today's game. They'd be just another competitive team.

[ShawkFactory]

That's the correct argument to use. You admitted you never watched the NBA until 2011. And in the 2011 playoffs Chris Paul put on a clinic on how to manipulate the PnR with Pau and Bynum guarding him in mismatches to get open iso jumpers and nail them. But they weren't all 3s.

Tatum and Brown against a Luka and Kyrie defensive backcourt this year shot 23% and 26% from 3pt range in the 2024 NBA Finals.

They were ass from long distance. Which makes the argument that 3pt shooting is the end all be all in this debate that more hilarious. :lol

Now how are you gonna talk about peoples IQ in a discussion and then boil things down to Tatum and Brown vs Luka and Kyrie? You know that's not how the shit went down.

The Celtics are masterful at exploiting mismatches on offense and switching on D and not being exploited there. They'd lose the rebounding battle most likely though.

[tpols]

Now how are you gonna talk about peoples IQ in a discussion and then boil things down to Tatum and Brown vs Luka and Kyrie? You know that's not how the shit went down.

The Celtics are masterful at exploiting mismatches on offense and switching on D and not being exploited there. They'd lose the rebounding battle most likely though.


Who did Tatum and Brown shoot 26% and 23% from 3pt range against then? :lol

Spell it out.

[ShawkFactory]

Who did Tatum and Brown shoot 26% and 23% from 3pt range against then? :lol

Spell it out.

It's a 5 game sample and sometimes the shots just don't go down? And neither of them are particularly great 3pt shooters anyway?

Wow that easy.

[tpols]

It's a 5 game sample and sometimes the shots just don't go down? And neither of them are particularly great 3pt shooters anyway?

Wow that easy.



That's the point OP has been trying to make. 3pt variance. It's extremely boom or bust.

In the 2024 NBA Finals Tatum, Brown, and Porzingis shot 26%, 23%, and 22%(!) from 3pt range.

:roll:

It's just funny because a lot of the arguments we hear in this thread are "woah man... they'd just bang mad 3s and 3>2 amirite?"

Turns out they weren't even good at that. Their best scorers and shooters shot terribly from 3.

[AlternativeAcc.]

That's the point OP has been trying to make. 3pt variance. It's extremely boom or bust.

In the 2024 NBA Finals Tatum, Brown, and Porzingis shot 26%, 23%, and 22%(!) from 3pt range.

:roll:

It's just funny because a lot of the arguments we hear in this thread are "woah man... they'd just bang mad 3s and 3>2 amirite?"

Turns out they weren't even good at that. Their best scorers and shooters shot like terribly from 3.
And yet they still shot better from 3 than the Mavs on higher volume.

[Axe]

If pau can shoot threes really well upon transitioning, then that would be so good for his team.

[ShawkFactory]

That's the point OP has been trying to make. 3pt variance. It's extremely boom or bust.

In the 2024 NBA Finals Tatum, Brown, and Porzingis shot 26%, 23%, and 22%(!) from 3pt range.

:roll:

It's just funny because a lot of the arguments we hear in this thread are "woah man... they'd just bang mad 3s and 3>2 amirite?"

Turns out they weren't even good at that. Their best scorers and shooters shot terribly from 3.

And they still won easily because they do so many other things well.

Imagine what would happen if they were actually hot from 3, as they are obviously capable of doing? Like Kristaps missed most of the series and went 2-9 from 3.

They move the ball ridiculously. Constantly cutting, poking and prodding at a defense and wearing them down. Then they're so good on the other end, particularly on the perimeter. Kobe would NOT have an easy time dealing with Brown and Jrue with an intelligent team concept defensively behind them.

Their best shooters are Jrue, White, Horford, Pritchard, and Hauser btw. That's why they're so dangerous because literally everyone outside of their top dawgs are great shooters.

[Axe]

That's the point OP has been trying to make. 3pt variance. It's extremely boom or bust.

In the 2024 NBA Finals Tatum, Brown, and Porzingis shot 26%, 23%, and 22%(!) from 3pt range.

:roll:

It's just funny because a lot of the arguments we hear in this thread are "woah man... they'd just bang mad 3s and 3>2 amirite?"

Turns out they weren't even good at that. Their best scorers and shooters shot terribly from 3.
Ever heard of defense? Lmao.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Who did Tatum and Brown shoot 26% and 23% from 3pt range against then? :lol

Spell it out.
The team three point shooting is more than three players. As a team they only had one game shooting under 33%. And that's with their two big guns missing from three.

But you keep acting like Kyrie Irving's defense had anything to do with Tatum's shooting.

[tpols]

And yet they still shot better from 3 than the Mavs on higher volume.

Yup. And Boston also shot worse from 3 than the 2009 Lakers in the Finals.

LA shot 37% from deep. The Celtics shot 33%.

The more we delve into this the funnier it gets. :lol

[AlternativeAcc.]

Bynum would absolutely be played off the court vs. the Celtics.

Pau could definitely get the better of Tatum in some 1v1 situations, but Pau isn't even a high volume scorer and the Celtics have the best help defense in the league. The mismatch on the other end is far greater in the Celtics favor.

All in all the current Celtics would wipe the floor with the 09 Lakers. Some of you guys seriously don't know ball.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Yup. And Boston also shot worse from 3 than the 2009 Lakers in the Finals.

LA shot 37% from deep. The Celtics shot 33%.

The more we delve into this the funnier it gets. :lol

Its almost like the Celtics and Magic have different defenses and the volume difference is massive.

Whats funny is you've brought up 2 examples of a team shooting better from 3 than their competition while trying to make the argument that 3pt shooting doesn't matter. :oldlol:

You're a national treasure.

[ShawkFactory]

Its almost like the Celtics and Magic have different defenses and the volume difference is massive.

Whats funny is you've brought up 2 examples of a team shooting better from 3 than their competition while trying to make the argument that 3pt shooting doesn't matter. :oldlol:

You're a national treasure.

It'd be interesting to see if the eFG% and TS% reflects the difference in 3pt volume.

Spoiler alert...it does.

[tpols]

You're a national treasure.


Oh stop... im bashful.

https://media.tenor.com/Zrxg83kSsQAAAAAM/shy-wave.gif

Don't try to turn this around though. Yall are the ones saying 3pt shooting is all that matters but when I point out the 2009 Lakers shot better from 3 than today's champion in the NBA Finals, which is the only real series Boston played, you want to tuck tail.

Once again no pun intended.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Oh stop... im bashful.

https://media.tenor.com/Zrxg83kSsQAAAAAM/shy-wave.gif

Don't try to turn this around though. Yall are the ones saying 3pt shooting is all that matters but when I point out the 2009 Lakers shot better from 3 than today's champion in the NBA Finals, which is the only real series Boston played, you want to tuck tail.

Once again no pun intended.

No, I think you're the one trying to pretend the Celtics are only a 3pt shooting team when in reality they can beat you with passing, defense, and chemistry in a more dominant fashion than the 09 Lakers could.

When you add the massive difference in 3pt capabilities, it's easy to see why the Celtics would be a massive favorite in a hypothetical series.

You brought up 2 examples of a team out-shooting their competition in the finals while making the argument that 3pt shooting doesn't matter. So your weird strawmans and 5 game samples don't even hold up...it's just desperation and half-baked arguments per usual.

[tontoz]

Yup. And Boston also shot worse from 3 than the 2009 Lakers in the Finals.

LA shot 37% from deep. The Celtics shot 33%.

The more we delve into this the funnier it gets. :lol


Actually the Celtics shot 34% from 3 if you round it correctly, and they made 14 3s per game, double what the "lights out" Lakers made

[HoopsNY]

Adebayo averaged 19 points, same as Gasol. And it wasn't just jumpers, he pays. Tatum isn't going to shut him down but he would defend Gasol as competently as most power forward. But on the other end how is Gasol going to cover a perimeter player that has averaged 30? That year out is one of the reasons why the Celtics are a great team, because they're are a lot more guys that Tatum can guard than they're are guys that can guard Tatum.

Not sure this is the flex that you might think it is? Bam led the Heat in scoring with 23 PPG on near 50% shooting in the series against Boston. So what's Tatum doing against Pau, really?

In addition, Bam this season shot 52% on 2P attempts whereas the league shot 55%.

2009 Pau shot almost 57% with the league shooting something like 48.5% in 2P attempts. In the playoffs, Pau put up 58% while the league shot 48%.

I have to agree with tpols on this one. The two, at least in terms of offensive skillsets, are completely different. Sure, the Lakers are at a disadvantage with Gasol guarding Tatum on the perimeter, but I think the C's would actually try to go with a bigger lineup which would probably result in him not even having to guard Tatum at that point.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Not sure this is the flex that you might think it is? Bam led the Heat in scoring with 23 PPG on near 50% shooting in the series against Boston. So what's Tatum doing against Pau, really? You are applying adebayo's overall numbers when the subject is just the defense of Tatum. That's a mistake.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/bam-adebayo-shooting-percentage-when-guarded-by-jayson-tatum

Tatum's defense in Adebayo stays with adebayo's average. And that was clearly good enough. I did not say that Tatum shut him down. Tatum especially did a good job when you consider the fact that after porzingis got hurt he and Derrick White were the best run protectors on the Celtics. So of Tatum got beat it meant an uncontested lay-up.


In addition, Bam this season shot 52% on 2P attempts whereas the league shot 55%. That's not particularly important unless you want to say that Adebayo isn't a good shooter? You can have that opinion but I don't agree.


2009 Pau shot almost 57% with the league shooting something like 48.5% in 2P attempts. In the playoffs, Pau put up 58% while the league shot 48%.I don't think anyone is saying Gasol couldn't score.


I have to agree with tpols on this one. The two, at least in terms of offensive skillsets, are completely different. Sure, the Lakers are at a disadvantage with Gasol guarding Tatum on the perimeter, but I think the C's would actually try to go with a bigger lineup which would probably result in him not even having to guard Tatum at that point. The Celtics would go with whatever worked best and the two big lineup had been dying out for a reason. Tatum had far more experience guarding bigs than Gasol had playing in the perimeter. Do you really believe that Kobe Bryant is going to give Gasol 20+ posts? Who's more likely to take 25+ shots between Tatum and Gasol? If anyone assists first is going to be the Lakers with Lamar Odom.

[Im Still Ballin]

How 2009-10 LA did against the proto-modern 1st-ranked offense Phoenix Suns:

3-1 in the regular season

https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200911120LAL.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200912060LAL.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200912280PHO.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201003120PHO.html

4-2 in the WCF

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2010-nba-western-conference-finals-suns-vs-lakers.html

LA had a 114.6 ORtg and 106.7 DRtg in those four regular season games. 124.2 ORtg and 119.6 DRtg in the six playoff games. Combined, that's 120.3 ORtg and 114.3 DRtg.

*stats slightly vary depending on how possessions are calculated. NBA.com vs. Basketball Reference.

So, 2009-10 LA actually held Phoenix's #1 offense/+7.7 rORtg below average across the ten games they played that season.

[tontoz]

The suns were ranked 19th in defense. The Celtics were 3rd.

[Im Still Ballin]

You'd think a futuristic offense would've cooked the big-and-slow Lakers defense but that's not what happened. The same was true for Orlando from 2007-08 to 2011-12:

- 14 games played
- 7-7 W/L
- 107.4 ORtg; 105.4 DRtg

LA held Orlando's proto-modern offense 3.7 points per 100 below average.

I think any defensive concerns are exaggerated.

[tontoz]

You'd think a futuristic offense would've cooked the big-and-slow Lakers defense but that's not what happened. The same was true for Orlando from 2007-08 to 2011-12:

- 14 games played
- 7-7 W/L
- 107.4 ORtg; 105.4 DRtg

LA held Orlando's proto-modern offense 3.7 points per 100 below average.

I think any defensive concerns are exaggerated.


The Suns offensive efficiency of 112.7 would rank
18th this past season.

[RRR3]

You'd think a futuristic offense would've cooked the big-and-slow Lakers defense but that's not what happened. The same was true for Orlando from 2007-08 to 2011-12:

- 14 games played
- 7-7 W/L
- 107.4 ORtg; 105.4 DRtg

LA held Orlando's proto-modern offense 3.7 points per 100 below average.

I think any defensive concerns are exaggerated.
The Magic in 2009 took 5 less 3s per game than the 30th ranked team last year.

[Im Still Ballin]

You'd think offenses "ahead of the curve" would've cooked LA's defense back then. But they didn't.

Maybe basketball is a little more complicated than these reductive, simplistic narratives and notions casual fans like to throw out there about "the modern game."

[tontoz]

You'd think offenses "ahead of the curve" would've cooked LA's defense back then. But they didn't.

Maybe basketball is a little more complicated than these reductive, simplistic narratives and notions casual fans like to throw out there about "the modern game."

Did you even know that the Suns offense is below average relative to today's teams?

[RRR3]

Did you even know that the Suns offense is below average relative to today's teams?
He’s trolling. He intentionally finds unpopular arguments and spends a lot of time pretending to be serious to bait people into this. Like that month when he kept implying Dwight Howard was some GOAT level scorer.

[warriorfan]

This basically boils down to the 3’s vs 2’s argument. 3’s are more efficient obviously but have more variance. If you ran both teams up against eachother in a bunch of different series you would have winners on both sides.

[RRR3]

You cannot play two non shooting bigs who can only guard the paint against the Celtics. The Celtics would win literally every time in a 7 game series.

Btw I know Odom could guard the perimeter but he was a poor shooter so even if you completely bench Bynum that’s still very poor spacing. Celtics are baiting the Lakers into taking 3s.

[Im Still Ballin]

Generally not a good idea to compare ORtg and DRtg across years, especially many. How do you divorce and untangle rule changes, personnel, schemes, strategic trade-offs, and league-wide stylistic trends from one another?

You're trying to paint a clear and concise narrative that doesn't reflect the multifactorial reality of how the game has changed. How it always has changed in the past and will continue to change in the future. It ebbs and flows as different types of talent enter the league and is assembled on teams differently.

They were saying offensive rebounds and size were archaic in the 2010s and now they're back in a big way in the 2020s. Dual-big lineups and second-chance points en vogue once more. High-volume mid-range and post-up teams leading to elite half-court and playoff offenses. Elite defenses with two bigs! Elite offenses based around possession efficiency (ORB% and TOV%).

Poor man's Kobe and Pau (DeMar + LMA) = 3rd-best half-court offense in 2019. Their offense was still 9th overall in 2020 despite injuries to LMA, getting worse on defense, and their shot-making declining. Probably had a top 5 half-court offense still!
LMA + Old Pau/David Lee/Dedmon = #1 defense in 2017. 3rd-best defense in 2018 with LMA + even older Pau Gasol and an undersized PF literally called Slow-Mo.

Oh, but let me guess. The modern game started AFTER these years, right? Like Before Christ and After his Death? Or was it the freedom of movement rule in 2018? Or the shortening of the shot-clock after offensive rebounds from 24 seconds to 14 to speed up the pace of the game even more?

The lesson here is simple: don't (CLAP EMOJI!) speak (CLAP EMOJI!) in (CLAP EMOJI!) absolutes (CLAP EMOJI!) about (CLAP EMOJI!) basketball!

[RRR3]

Two big lineups are fine, but not two big lineups in which neither could shoot (Pau/Bynum, Pau/Odom) or neither can guard the perimeter (Pau/Bynum). If you’re playing a traditional big, you need to pair them with a Karl-Anthony Towns or a Jaren Jackson.

[Proctor]

Generally not a good idea to compare ORtg and DRtg across years, especially many. How do you divorce and untangle rule changes, personnel, schemes, strategic trade-offs, and league-wide stylistic trends from one another?

You're trying to paint a clear and concise narrative that doesn't reflect the multifactorial reality of how the game has changed. How it always has changed in the past and will continue to change in the future. It ebbs and flows as different types of talent enter the league and is assembled on teams differently.

They were saying offensive rebounds and size were archaic in the 2010s and now they're back in a big way in the 2020s. Dual-big lineups and second-chance points en vogue once more. High-volume mid-range and post-up teams leading to elite half-court and playoff offenses. Elite defenses with two bigs! Elite offenses based around possession efficiency (ORB% and TOV%).

Poor man's Kobe and Pau (DeMar + LMA) = 3rd-best half-court offense in 2019. Their offense was still 9th overall in 2020 despite injuries to LMA, getting worse on defense, and their shot-making declining. Probably had a top 5 half-court offense still!
LMA + Old Pau/David Lee/Dedmon = #1 defense in 2017. 3rd-best defense in 2018 with LMA + even older Pau Gasol and an undersized PF literally called Slow-Mo.

Oh, but let me guess. The modern game started AFTER these years, right? Like Before Christ and After his Death? Or was it the freedom of movement rule in 2018? Or the shortening of the shot-clock after offensive rebounds from 24 seconds to 14 to speed up the pace of the game even more?

The lesson here is simple: don't (CLAP EMOJI!) speak (CLAP EMOJI!) in (CLAP EMOJI!) absolutes (CLAP EMOJI!) about (CLAP EMOJI!) basketball!

Preach :applause:

And also, (not directed at ISB) it's braindead analysis to pretend like Gasol/Bynum/Odom "couldn't shoot." Odom was mediocre at it but "couldn't shoot" is Andre Roberson. Gasol evolved with the game and its new emphasis on 3s and even Bynum before he went haywire was stepping out further and further and hitting in a decent way. They would have been able to adapt to the current NBA's emphases comfortably. No basketball reference regurgitated stat grab gotcha garbage shit arguments will change this. I don't usually participate in these threads because I find no joy in arguing with basketball reference obsessed brick walls but you are on fire in this thread.

[Im Still Ballin]

Got some more data on the 2018-19 Spurs.

According to Cleaning the Glass, they had the 5th-best overall offense (113.5 ORtg/+3.1 rORtg) and fourth-best half-court offense (100.0 points per play; +5.3 points above league average). They were a measly 0.2 points per play behind 2nd-ranked Houston jacking up a record-breaking amount of threes.

Half-court points per play
1. GSW (102.2)
2. HOU (100.5)
3. MIL (100.3)
4. SAS (100.0)
5. POR (97.6)

This was despite being the worst half-court offensive-rebounding team in the league at 22.7% ORB. The league average was 26.3% ORB. Simply adjusting for league average offensive rebounding would put their half-court offense comfortably above Houston and Milwaukee and have them right there with GSW.

Cleaning the Glass removes heaves and garbage time from its statistics. Garbage time and heaves are defined as follows:


By default, all stats on this site exclude garbage time and possessions at the end of quarters that are highly likely to end up in a heave. When we use stats to evaluate players and teams, we are trying to do so in the context of a normal game. Garbage time and projected heave possessions are not reflective of a normal game, and so these stats are filtered out.

Garbage Time
Cleaning the Glass uses a definition of garbage time that is as objective as possible and generally matches up with most people's perception of when garbage time starts: when the game is out of hand, both teams have subbed out most of their starters, and the game never gets close again.

The Gritty Details
The exact definition CTG uses is: the game has to be in the 4th quarter, the score differential has to be >= 25 for minutes 12-9, >= 20 for minutes 9-6, and >= 10 for the remainder of the quarter. Additionally, there have to be two or fewer starters on the floor combined between the two teams.

Importantly, the game can never go back to being non-garbage time, or this clock resets. For example, if it's a 30 point game to start the 4th quarter, but one team comes back and pulls the game within 8, that comeback is not counted as garbage time. If the leading team regains control and expands the lead back out, garbage time would start when the score went back above 10.

This might not capture all of what we'd call garbage time, but it seeems important to err on the side of caution and not mistakenly filter out any game time that we would not consider garbage time.

Projected Heave Possessions
At the end of a quarter, teams will sometimes get a possession where the clock is so low when it starts that they don't have time to run a normal play. They generally rush the ball up the court and fling a shot up, or otherwise might not even get a shot off. These are possessions by the definition, but they are qualitatitively different than a normal possession and thus can skew stats. They are possessions where, at the start, it seems highly likely the team will end up with a heave shot. Cleaning the Glass filters these out by default as well, so as not to penalize players and teams for a low percentage shot during this type of possession.

The Gritty Details
CTG defines these possessions as those that start with 4 or fewer seconds on the game clock at the end of one of the first three quarters.

[Im Still Ballin]

Got some more data on the 2018-19 Spurs.

According to Cleaning the Glass, they had the 5th-best overall offense (113.5 ORtg/+3.1 rORtg) and fourth-best half-court offense (100.0 points per play; +5.3 points above league average).

They were a measly 0.2 points per play behind 2nd-ranked Houston jacking up a record-breaking amount of threes. Is 2019 Houston's .519 3PAr the record still?

Half-court points per play
1. GSW (102.2)
2. HOU (100.5)
3. MIL (100.3)
4. SAS (100.0)
5. POR (97.6)

This was despite being the worst half-court offensive-rebounding team in the league at 22.7% ORB. The league average was 26.3% ORB. Simply adjusting for league average offensive rebounding would put their half-court offense comfortably above Houston and Milwaukee and have them right there with GSW.

Cleaning the Glass removes heaves and garbage time from its statistics. Garbage time and heaves are defined as follows:


By default, all stats on this site exclude garbage time and possessions at the end of quarters that are highly likely to end up in a heave. When we use stats to evaluate players and teams, we are trying to do so in the context of a normal game. Garbage time and projected heave possessions are not reflective of a normal game, and so these stats are filtered out.

Garbage Time
Cleaning the Glass uses a definition of garbage time that is as objective as possible and generally matches up with most people's perception of when garbage time starts: when the game is out of hand, both teams have subbed out most of their starters, and the game never gets close again.

The Gritty Details
The exact definition CTG uses is: the game has to be in the 4th quarter, the score differential has to be >= 25 for minutes 12-9, >= 20 for minutes 9-6, and >= 10 for the remainder of the quarter. Additionally, there have to be two or fewer starters on the floor combined between the two teams.

Importantly, the game can never go back to being non-garbage time, or this clock resets. For example, if it's a 30 point game to start the 4th quarter, but one team comes back and pulls the game within 8, that comeback is not counted as garbage time. If the leading team regains control and expands the lead back out, garbage time would start when the score went back above 10.

This might not capture all of what we'd call garbage time, but it seeems important to err on the side of caution and not mistakenly filter out any game time that we would not consider garbage time.

Projected Heave Possessions
At the end of a quarter, teams will sometimes get a possession where the clock is so low when it starts that they don't have time to run a normal play. They generally rush the ball up the court and fling a shot up, or otherwise might not even get a shot off. These are possessions by the definition, but they are qualitatitively different than a normal possession and thus can skew stats. They are possessions where, at the start, it seems highly likely the team will end up with a heave shot. Cleaning the Glass filters these out by default as well, so as not to penalize players and teams for a low percentage shot during this type of possession.

The Gritty Details
CTG defines these possessions as those that start with 4 or fewer seconds on the game clock at the end of one of the first three quarters.

[Im Still Ballin]

Preach :applause:

And also, (not directed at ISB) it's braindead analysis to pretend like Gasol/Bynum/Odom "couldn't shoot." Odom was mediocre at it but "couldn't shoot" is Andre Roberson. Gasol evolved with the game and its new emphasis on 3s and even Bynum before he went haywire was stepping out further and further and hitting in a decent way. They would have been able to adapt to the current NBA's emphases comfortably. No basketball reference regurgitated stat grab gotcha garbage shit arguments will change this. I don't usually participate in these threads because I find no joy in arguing with basketball reference obsessed brick walls but you are on fire in this thread.

:cheers:

[Im Still Ballin]

Damn. 2018-19 San Antonio's high-volume mid-range and post-up offense looks even better against the best defenses (top 10 DRtg). 2nd-best overall offense and the #1 half-court offense despite the lowest half-court ORB% and highest half-court frequency/lowest transition frequency.

The half-court offense wasn't even close. San Antonio was way ahead of the pack. +7.8 points per 100 above the league average! Shows you how lethal and robust that offense was.

Overall offense versus top-10 defenses only
1. TOR (113.3 ORtg)
2. SAS (112.9 ORtg)
3. GSW (111.6 ORtg)
4. HOU (111.3 ORtg)
5. BOS (111.1 ORtg)

[League average = 107.3 ORtg]

Half-court points per play versus top-10 defenses only
1. SAS (100.0 ppp)
2. GSW (98.6 ppp)
3. HOU (97.1 ppp)
4. BOS (96.9 ppp)
5. TOR (96.7 ppp)

[League average = 92.2 ppp]

But wait, you can even take it a step further!

Overall offense versus teams that are top 10 in defense and point differential
1. SAS (114.7 ORtg)
2. TOR (112.8 ORtg)
3. BOS (112.1 ORtg)
4. MIL (110.9 ORtg)
5. MIN (110.5 ORtg)

[League average = 106.9 ORtg]

Half-court points per play versus teams that are top 10 in defense and point differential
1. SAS (102.5 ppp)
2. BOS (97.0 ppp)
3. TOR (96.1 ppp)
4. data not available to free users.
5. data not available to free users.
6. data not available to free users.
7. MIN (95.0 ppp)
8. MIL (94.8 ppp)

[League average = 91.8 ppp]

Overall offense versus teams that are top 10 in defense, offense, and point differential
1. SAS (118.3 ORtg)
2. HOU (115.4 ORtg)
3. DAL (113.7 ORtg)
4. MIL (111.7 ORtg)
5. TOR (111.2 ORtg)

[League average = 107.4 ORtg]

Half-court points per play versus teams that are top 10 in defense, offense, and point differential
1. SAS (105.3 ppp)
2. HOU (99.2 ppp)
3. TOR (96.5 ppp)
4. data not available to free users.
5. DAL (96.3 ppp)

[League average = 91.9 ppp]

Obviously, the sample size gets smaller but still. That Spurs offense was really damn good against the top teams. They could've contended with a better defense.

[90sgoat]

Just gonna drop in unscientific and say that when I was rewatching the championship Kobe-Pau Lakers that something I noticed right away was how much more spacing that team had compared to Kobe-Shaq Lakers. It was night and day. The floor seemed wide open, even with Bynum and Pau on the floor.

[ILLsmak]

Giannis has Lillard, Luka had Kyrie, Jokic has Murray

The point is that in 09, the Kobe/Pau tandem was by far the best in the NBA.

Lebron had Mo Williams.. Wade had Haslem... Dwight had Nelson.

Lakers had by far the best tandem and the best role players in the late 00s. They were stacked for their time but wouldn't be in today's game. They'd be just another competitive team.

I agree with everything except that they would not be stacked, they would still be just as good. Other teams being better doesn't make them less good, if that makes sense. They'd be the favorites imo. The NBA is super weak now, too. There are all kinds of 'duos,' but dudes are injured and a lot of the supposedly great teams flame out in the first round way more than they would back in the day.

You need to consider Kobe would be the best guard in the NBA + support from a good team. It's really important to have that initial point of attack then bigs as outlets. That's what is not comparable.

It doesn't work with great big and pretty good SG, like it has to be all time SG + all star / all nba (?) big. And maybe Bynum would get played off at points, but they had the personnel to run without him. He'd still be useful, assuming he was injured.

That front line was dumb when you include Kobe. I don't even think a good defensive scheme could force Kobe to give up the ball or not get to spots. And if they were running more guys at him, that would be more shots and more rebounds.

-Smak

[Im Still Ballin]

Just gonna drop in unscientific and say that when I was rewatching the championship Kobe-Pau Lakers that something I noticed right away was how much more spacing that team had compared to Kobe-Shaq Lakers. It was night and day. The floor seemed wide open, even with Bynum and Pau on the floor.

Makes sense when you have Shaq taking up so much space inside. Gasol, Bynum, and Odom all moved around more in the half-court setting. Pau and Lamar were also skilled enough to play higher up than O'Neal or Bynum ever could.

Both approaches worked really well. I loved the high-low, interior, and touch passing from the Kobe-Pau Lakers. Just beautiful stuff. You see some of that with Jokic today and it's a joy to watch.

[tontoz]

Actually pts per 100 possessions is a perfect stat to compare across eras because it eliminates pace as a factor.

What exactly are the rules changes you are referring to here that would somehow have a big impact on pts per 100 possessions?

[Phoenix]

That's the point OP has been trying to make. 3pt variance. It's extremely boom or bust.

In the 2024 NBA Finals Tatum, Brown, and Porzingis shot 26%, 23%, and 22%(!) from 3pt range.

:roll:

It's just funny because a lot of the arguments we hear in this thread are "woah man... they'd just bang mad 3s and 3>2 amirite?"

Turns out they weren't even good at that. Their best scorers and shooters shot terribly from 3.

I do note that alot of arguments make it seem like every team was like the Warriors. Steph and Klay were the best combo of floor spacers in NBA history....then add KD to that. The 2016 team was blowing out opponents with Steph sitting out the entire 4th.

That level of range and firepower was unprecedented and unlikely to be duplicated in the foreseeable future. There's nobody that's come into the league in the last few years that's as good a shooter as any of those three in isolation, let alone as a duo/trio.

[tpols]

I do note that alot of arguments make it seem like every team was like the Warriors. Steph and Klay were the best combo of floor spacers in NBA history....then add KD to that. The 2016 team was blowing out opponents with Steph sitting out the entire 4th.

That level of range and firepower was unprecedented and unlikely to be duplicated in the foreseeable future. There's nobody that's come into the league in the last few years that's as good a shooter as any of those three in isolation, let alone as a duo/trio.

True.

But even with the splash bros... we've seen them go cold. Klay was ice cold in his first two Finals. Curry was cold in 2016. Tatum, Porzingis and Brown were ice cold from 3 in last year Finals.

Chucking 3s is highly variable. What the Lakers would do to modern small ball teams wouldnt be. It would be a total domination in the paint. No bad or good luck required.

Kobe gave an interview where he explained accidental vs purposeful basketball. Chucking 3s as your M.O. is accidental. Drive and kick checkers. The triangle was purposeful and meant to break and wear you down strategically. It was more patient and intelligent.

[ILLsmak]

I do note that alot of arguments make it seem like every team was like the Warriors. Steph and Klay were the best combo of floor spacers in NBA history....then add KD to that. The 2016 team was blowing out opponents with Steph sitting out the entire 4th.

That level of range and firepower was unprecedented and unlikely to be duplicated in the foreseeable future. There's nobody that's come into the league in the last few years that's as good a shooter as any of those three in isolation, let alone as a duo/trio.

2017 wars are easily one of the greatest teams of all time. Without KD, even great shooters can go cold, but with someone to operate in that space, it’s impossible. I know people hate KD, but nobody should question how good he was at his role on the team.

-Smak

[Soundwave]

They'd have won the title last year if you literally transplanted like the 2009 or 2010 version of them into here and now. That Boston team wouldn't beat them.

Not sure why that's all that surprising though.

They'd be "good" in any era.

[Axe]

They'd have won the title last year if you literally transplanted like the 2009 or 2010 version of them into here and now. That Boston team wouldn't beat them.

Not sure why that's all that surprising though.

They'd be "good" in any era.
The 2010 team had a hard time against the Cs but k-perk had his injury in game 5 when boston went up 3-2. Ofc the lakers capitalized on that as the Cs went more vulnerable within the rim. But game 7 still finished with a four-point margin so it's easy to say that boston could have won easily if he went unhampered.

[HoopsNY]

You are applying adebayo's overall numbers when the subject is just the defense of Tatum. That's a mistake.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/bam-adebayo-shooting-percentage-when-guarded-by-jayson-tatum

The link you provided doesn't give that.


Tatum's defense in Adebayo stays with adebayo's average. And that was clearly good enough. I did not say that Tatum shut him down. Tatum especially did a good job when you consider the fact that after porzingis got hurt he and Derrick White were the best run protectors on the Celtics. So of Tatum got beat it meant an uncontested lay-up.

Assuming Bam was scoring 19-20 PPG on high efficiency, then it only proves the point when in a much more faster paced league where the paint is opened up, Pau would only be at an advantage.


The Celtics would go with whatever worked best and the two big lineup had been dying out for a reason. Tatum had far more experience guarding bigs than Gasol had playing in the perimeter. Do you really believe that Kobe Bryant is going to give Gasol 20+ posts? Who's more likely to take 25+ shots between Tatum and Gasol? If anyone assists first is going to be the Lakers with Lamar Odom.

My assumption is that Gasol would run the 5 as opposed to the 4. As for Pau taking 20+ shots, then obviously he wouldn't. But why is that relevant?

[Real Men Wear Green]

The link you provided doesn't give that. The link is to Adebayo 's shooting percentage when guarded by Tatum every season for his career.



Assuming Bam was scoring 19-20 PPG on high efficiency, then it only proves the point when in a much more faster paced league where the paint is opened up, Pau would only be at an advantage. The link demonstrates that Tatum defended Adebayo on par with the league average. If he is able to defend Gasol at the level of his average defender that's a massive win for the Celtics because Gasol absolutely would not be able to defend Tatum.




My assumption is that Gasol would run the 5 as opposed to the 4. As for Pau taking 20+ shots, then obviously he wouldn't. But why is that relevant? If the Lakers play Gasol at the 5 and sit Bynum in favor of Odom then they don't have an advantage in the paint as Porzingis and Horford are both above-average man defenders when posted. The only way the Lakers could have a mismatch they could attack is by playing the two bigs together and then getting whoever Tatum guards (Gasol) a ton of shots. Of course that creates bad spacing by today's standards and as I keep pointing out Tatum is a lot better at guarding bigs than they are at guarding him. That ability is one of the keys to the Celtics' success because most wings can't play power forward. The Lakers' Odom is actually a precursor of that but he wasn't as much of a shooter (or scorer in general) and was almost definitely held back by a drug habit from becoming the player he should have been.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Apologies, statmuse ignored my question in the link.

[Real Men Wear Green]

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=bam+adebayos+fg%25+versus+jayson+tatum+in+20 24

This link says he shot 45.5%. "Bam Adebayo hit 45.5 percent from the field versus Jayson Tatum in 2023-24." But that could be the o overall number vs the Celtics which isn't the same thing.

[HoopsNY]

Did you even know that the Suns offense is below average relative to today's teams?

Surely you don't use that kind of logic (plug and play) to determine the abilities of past teams?

The 2015 Warriors were #1 in TS% that year. Their TS% would rank them #24 this year. They would be ranked #16 in eFG%. And in ORTG they would be ranked #25.

Obviously when we look at these metrics, they don't tell the entire story.

[HoopsNY]

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=bam+adebayos+fg%25+versus+jayson+tatum+in+20 24

This link says he shot 45.5%. "Bam Adebayo hit 45.5 percent from the field versus Jayson Tatum in 2023-24." But that could be the o overall number vs the Celtics which isn't the same thing.

And in the playoffs, statmuse has it listed at 23 PPG on 50% shooting. How effective was Tatum, really? I didn't watch the series, so I don't know. What I do know is that Gasol was one of the most skilled players in league history in the post. A matchup with Tatum would be a bigger disadvantage than having to defend Bam.

[Real Men Wear Green]

And in the playoffs, statmuse has it listed at 23 PPG on 50% shooting. How effective was Tatum, really? I didn't watch the series, so I don't know. What I do know is that Gasol was one of the most skilled players in league history in the post. A matchup with Tatum would be a bigger disadvantage than having to defend Bam. Tatum was able to keep Adebayo from running wild. It wasn't a case of him shutting Adebayo down but after Porzingis went out the only real center was Horford (Luke Kornet was also hurt). Tatum demonstrated that he is a solid defense of the power forward position. He would not shut Gasol down but like with Adebayo he would defend Gasol at an average level. Gasol and the Lakers would need to step out of character and make Gasol a volume scorer to have a chance to take advantage and even if they did Tatum defends bigs at the level of a power forward. He's 6'9 or 6'10 and 240. He's played PF for the last two years. He has the build of the position and experience. On the other end Gasol never played defense on the perimeter. If Jackson doesn't abandon double-big line-ups how are they matching up with the Celtics? What defense do they play that has a good defense on Tatum and Brown without giving up open threes to everyone else? To say nothing of falling victim to plays where the Celtics force bad switches? In a 1-5 pick and roll/pop how do you keep KP from abusing Fisher? And when Porzingis and Horford are hitting threes how do the Lakers counter that while still protecting the paint? The Celtics will have 4 out of 5 guys out there that are above-average or better perimeter defenders to match up with Kobe Bryant. But how are the Lakers dealing with Boston's modern approach to basketball?

[tontoz]

Surely you don't use that kind of logic (plug and play) to determine the abilities of past teams?

The 2015 Warriors were #1 in TS% that year. Their TS% would rank them #24 this year. They would be ranked #16 in eFG%. And in ORTG they would be ranked #25.

Obviously when we look at these metrics, they don't tell the entire story.



Actually it does show how much teams have improved, and Boston dominated. No chance that Lakers team could be at Boston.

If you think otherwise then please share the rules changes that dramatically improved offensive efficiency league wide.

Some of the increased scoring is due to pace which won't show up in ortg.

[warriorfan]

Actually it does show how much teams have improved, and Boston dominated. No chance that Lakers team could be at Boston.

If you think otherwise then please share the rules changes that dramatically improved offensive efficiency league wide.

Some of the increased scoring is due to pace which won't show up in ortg.

freedom of movement and just all around how the game is called

[tontoz]

freedom of movement and just all around how the game is called


Those aren't rules changes, and there was freedom of movement 10 years ago. There just weren't as many shooters.

Thanks to Steph's popularity far more guys come into the league willing and able to shoot 3s compared to back then.

[tpols]

freedom of movement and just all around how the game is called

Not only that but the style of player has changed. We have people bringing up Myles Turner, JJJ, and Bam. Two guys who aren't even good in the post skill wise, and one of which is undersized comparatively. It's a different world trying to guard an elite 7ft post player in general, much less with an undersized defender, and even more less with a trio of them.

And sure... a guy like Pau would be hunted in the PnR mismatch game. Just how Chris Paul did him in 2011. But we just saw in the 2024 Finals Bostons star players shot like ass from 3. And that was abusing a lazy Luka whose even worse than Pau defensively. With the difference being Pau could actually punish them down low on offense, and he was playing with an MVP version of Kobe instead of Kyrie.

[AlternativeAcc.]

OP getting obliterated in this thread. This is why you can't analyze basketball from spreadsheets and an idealized view of past players/teams.

[tontoz]

Not only that but the style of player has changed. We have people bringing up Myles Turner, JJJ, and Bam. Two guys who aren't even good in the post skill wise, and one of which is undersized comparatively. It's a different world trying to guard an elite 7ft post player in general, much less with an undersized defender, and even more less with a trio of them.

And sure... a guy like Pau would be hunted in the PnR mismatch game. Just how Chris Paul did him in 2011. But we just saw in the 2024 Finals Bostons star players shot like ass from 3. And that was abusing a lazy Luka whose even worse than Pau defensively. With the difference being Pau could actually punish them down low on offense, and he was playing with an MVP version of Kobe instead of Kyrie.


And yet Boston still made 14 3s per game shooting 33.8% as a team in the finals. Kobe shot 32.9% from 3 for his career.

[ILLsmak]

Those aren't rules changes, and there was freedom of movement 10 years ago. There just weren't as many shooters.



Do you think it's possible that it took them awhile to A. adapt to the new rules in regards to not only playing but building teams, and B. adapt to how they were gonna call it for maximum efficiency? Something to think about. This league obviously wants scoring.

-Smak

[tontoz]

Do you think it's possible that it took them awhile to A. adapt to the new rules in regards to not only playing but building teams, and B. adapt to how they were gonna call it for maximum efficiency? Something to think about. This league obviously wants scoring.

-Smak

Actually they have changed the calls recently to help the defense, no longer giving the offensive player foul shots when he jumps sideways into a defender to take a shot. That used to be a free pass to the foul line all the time but wasn't last season.

[Im Still Ballin]

Surely you don't use that kind of logic (plug and play) to determine the abilities of past teams?

The 2015 Warriors were #1 in TS% that year. Their TS% would rank them #24 this year. They would be ranked #16 in eFG%. And in ORTG they would be ranked #25.

Obviously when we look at these metrics, they don't tell the entire story.

Pretty much LOL.

A team's ORtg, eFG%, and TS% are averages across 82 games against 29 other teams. How those other teams choose to play significantly influences the numbers of that individual team. You can't make direct one-to-one comparisons between two completely different league ecosystems.

[HoopsNY]

Tatum was able to keep Adebayo from running wild. It wasn't a case of him shutting Adebayo down but after Porzingis went out the only real center was Horford (Luke Kornet was also hurt). Tatum demonstrated that he is a solid defense of the power forward position.

How do you know this? For one, Bam never "ran wild" as he was never a prolific scorer to begin with. In addition, his best performance of his career came this year, against - you guessed it - Boston. So how did Tatum demonstrate he is a "solid defensive PF"?



He would not shut Gasol down but like with Adebayo he would defend Gasol at an average level. Gasol and the Lakers would need to step out of character and make Gasol a volume scorer to have a chance to take advantage and even if they did Tatum defends bigs at the level of a power forward. He's 6'9 or 6'10 and 240. He's played PF for the last two years. He has the build of the position and experience. On the other end Gasol never played defense on the perimeter. If Jackson doesn't abandon double-big line-ups how are they matching up with the Celtics? What defense do they play that has a good defense on Tatum and Brown without giving up open threes to everyone else? To say nothing of falling victim to plays where the Celtics force bad switches? In a 1-5 pick and roll/pop how do you keep KP from abusing Fisher? And when Porzingis and Horford are hitting threes how do the Lakers counter that while still protecting the paint? The Celtics will have 4 out of 5 guys out there that are above-average or better perimeter defenders to match up with Kobe Bryant. But how are the Lakers dealing with Boston's modern approach to basketball?

My argument was never about this bit, just about Gasol offensively and what he would have brought to the table given the matchups. I do think that matters, especially when you have a perimeter threat like Kobe.

[HoopsNY]

Actually it does show how much teams have improved, and Boston dominated. No chance that Lakers team could be at Boston.

If you think otherwise then please share the rules changes that dramatically improved offensive efficiency league wide.

Some of the increased scoring is due to pace which won't show up in ortg.

I don't think "improved" is the appropriate word. Steph, KD, Butler, Kawhi, Dame, etc never "improved," they more so "adjusted". I think there's a big difference.

Another example would be the changes that took effect in the early 2000s. Did players "improve" or did they merely adjust? And I never mentioned that the rule changes were the only reason, maybe someone else did. I think style of play and what the league and teams demanded was primary. Look at Carmelo's interviews when he spoke about how the Blazers and OKC both wanted him to play, as well as how the refs were calling him given the way things were changing.

[HoopsNY]

Actually it does show how much teams have improved, and Boston dominated. No chance that Lakers team could be at Boston.

If you think otherwise then please share the rules changes that dramatically improved offensive efficiency league wide.

Some of the increased scoring is due to pace which won't show up in ortg.

I don't think "improved" is the appropriate word. Steph, KD, Butler, Kawhi, Dame, etc never "improved," they more so "adjusted". I think there's a big difference.

Another example would be the changes that took effect in the early 2000s. Did players "improve" or did they merely adjust? And I never mentioned that the rule changes were the only reason, maybe someone else did. I think style of play and what the league and teams demanded was primary. Look at Carmelo's interviews when he spoke about how the Blazers and OKC both wanted him to play, as well as how the refs were calling him given the way things were changing.

[tontoz]

I don't think "improved" is the appropriate word. Steph, KD, Butler, Kawhi, Dame, etc never "improved," they more so "adjusted". I think there's a big difference.

Another example would be the changes that took effect in the early 2000s. Did players "improve" or did they merely adjust? And I never mentioned that the rule changes were the only reason, maybe someone else did. I think style of play and what the league and teams demanded was primary. Look at Carmelo's interviews when he spoke about how the Blazers and OKC both wanted him to play, as well as how the refs were calling him given the way things were changing.


The big rules change about the hand check was back in 2004 i believe, and the Kobe-Gasol Lakers won the title years after that went into effect.

It isn't about Steph "improving". It is about him inspiring a generation of young players to focus more on shooting 3s. Now those kids are NBA players and shooting/spacing have improved as a result.

[HoopsNY]

The big rules change about the hand check was back in 2004 i believe, and the Kobe-Gasol Lakers won the title years after that went into effect.

It isn't about Steph "improving". It is about him inspiring a generation of young players to focus more on shooting 3s. Now those kids are NBA players and shooting/spacing have improved as a result.

My point was that rule changes, style of play, ownership/management demands, etc all impact how the game is actually played and called. Melo discussed that he simply couldn't play how he wanted when he went to OKC and Portland. Now, this goes for any player within a system of any sort, but it wasn't one that was dictated purely by the coach to address the needs of the team. This was more in alignment with the vision of Adam Silver and the league as a whole.

The rules regarding hand checking resulted in almost an immediate boost to players' statistics by 2005 and 2006. AI, Kobe, LeBron, and even Ray Allen saw career highs in PPG by then. But I don't think they necessarily improved (though an argument could be made for that). I think it would more of adjustments being made.

Similarly, we've seen guys like Steph, PG, Kawhi, KD, etc put up career highs in efficiency numbers like TS%, but they're doing so well past the age of 32. And it seems to be a trend across the league.

Now, we can say that maybe Chris Paul became better at ages 32-34 because he put up career highs in 3pt% or TS% or whatever from 2017-2020, but I don't think that would be a fair assessment of him as a player anymore than looking at Steph from 2015 and comparing him to 2022 or whatever.

Point is, if you're going to assess the Lakers, then you have to adjust accordingly. Otherwise, they're in the bottom of the pit when compared to today's teams and I don't think anyone believes that.

[tontoz]

My point was that rule changes, style of play, ownership/management demands, etc all impact how the game is actually played and called. Melo discussed that he simply couldn't play how he wanted when he went to OKC and Portland. Now, this goes for any player within a system of any sort, but it wasn't one that was dictated purely by the coach to address the needs of the team. This was more in alignment with the vision of Adam Silver and the league as a whole.

The rules regarding hand checking resulted in almost an immediate boost to players' statistics by 2005 and 2006. AI, Kobe, LeBron, and even Ray Allen saw career highs in PPG by then. But I don't think they necessarily improved (though an argument could be made for that). I think it would more of adjustments being made.

Similarly, we've seen guys like Steph, PG, Kawhi, KD, etc put up career highs in efficiency numbers like TS%, but they're doing so well past the age of 32. And it seems to be a trend across the league.

Now, we can say that maybe Chris Paul became better at ages 32-34 because he put up career highs in 3pt% or TS% or whatever from 2017-2020, but I don't think that would be a fair assessment of him as a player anymore than looking at Steph from 2015 and comparing him to 2022 or whatever.

Point is, if you're going to assess the Lakers, then you have to adjust accordingly. Otherwise, they're in the bottom of the pit when compared to today's teams and I don't think anyone believes that.



Melo is a bad example. He was always a ball stopper. Karl used to complain about it in Denver. So did Jackson in NY. In Melo's world everything had to revolve around Melo.

You are just trying to revise history with Steph. He led the league twice in TS, in his 20s not his 30s. Durant had 4 straight years with a 63%+ TS with OKC. He played 81 games with a 64.7% TS at age 24. Kawhi had a 61.6% TS at age 24.

[Real Men Wear Green]

How do you know this? For one, Bam never "ran wild" as he was never a prolific scorer to begin with. In addition, his best performance of his career came this year, against - you guessed it - Boston. So how did Tatum demonstrate he is a "solid defensive PF"?Him having one 27 point game is nice it's only one game. Game 5 he went 10 of 26 from the field but I'm not going to say that one game shows Tatum shuts him down. It's just one game. Also I doubt that was the best game of his career.


My argument was never about this bit, just about Gasol offensively and what he would have brought to the table given the matchups. I do think that matters, especially when you have a perimeter threat like Kobe.If the Lakers played Boston the goal of both teams would be to win so if we're talking about some hypothetical Tatum vs Gasol consideration of how their individual match-up fits into, affects and is affected by everything else is relevant. If Tatum or Gasol scores 4 straight buckets and it's looking easy like they're getting hot, the coaches will make adjustments. It's not going to happen in a vacuum. And more importantly, this discussion is about who wins in a Lakers/Celtics champion meet.

[RRR3]

24 Celtics would legitimately sweep the 09 or 10 Lakers why is this even a debate. Some people refuse to admit teams have gotten smarter at basketball on both ends of the floor.

[Im Still Ballin]

Pretty much LOL.

A team's ORtg, eFG%, and TS% are averages across 82 games against 29 other teams. How those other teams choose to play significantly influences the numbers of that individual team. You can't make direct one-to-one comparisons between two completely different league ecosystems.

Damn. I hit a home run with this one. Still waiting for that reply...

[tontoz]

Damn. I hit a home run with this one. Still waiting for that reply...

:oldlol:

Shooting is shooting. The ball goes in or it doesn't. It goes in more now because there are more good shooters throughout the league, who have better skills they learned from imitating moves of previous players This isn't hard to grasp.

[Im Still Ballin]

This guy thinks a team from 2010 would be just as good today :oldlol:

How many times did you edit this response?

First it was...


This guy thinks a team from 2010 would be just as good today :oldlol:

Then just an emoji...


:oldlol:

And another...


Shooting is shooting. The ball goes in or it doesn't. It goes in more now because there are more good shooters throughout the league. This isn't hard to grasp.

And then the end result!


:oldlol:

Shooting is shooting. The ball goes in or it doesn't. It goes in more now because there are more good shooters throughout the league, who have better skills they learned from imitating moves of previous players This isn't hard to grasp.

[tontoz]

The average team shot 78% from the foul line this year.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/free-throw-pct?date=2024-06-18

Back in 2006 the average team shot 74.6% from the line.

I am sure it was the "ecosystem" that made all the difference. :lol

[warriorfan]

The average team shot 78% from the foul line this year.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/free-throw-pct?date=2024-06-18

Back in 2006 the average team shot 74.6% from the line.

I am sure it was the "ecosystem" that made all the difference. :lol

It would be better to compare guards or forwards from the different years maybe.

Teams don’t play big centers as much now which are traditionally the worst FT shooters so that will drive down the averages in past years.

[tontoz]

It would be better to compare guards or forwards from the different years maybe.

Teams don’t play big centers as much now which are traditionally the worst FT shooters so that will drive down the averages in past years.

Jokic, embiid, Brook, Wemby, KP, JV, Kat....big centers can shoot now.

[Soundwave]

24 Celtics would legitimately sweep the 09 or 10 Lakers why is this even a debate. Some people refuse to admit teams have gotten smarter at basketball on both ends of the floor.

Disagree. They'd lose. Especially if we're talking Porzingis is injured.

"Being smarter" doesn't make up for the gulf in skill and talent either, Kobe and Gasol would be by far the most skilled players on the court.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Disagree. They'd lose. Especially if we're talking Porzingis is injured.

"Being smarter" doesn't make up for the gulf in skill and talent either, Kobe and Gasol would be by far the most skilled players on the court.

Kinda like Luka and Kyrie were by far the most skilled players on the court.

This revisionist history about Kobe is weird, he wasn't a good finals performer and brings nothing to the table that the Celtics couldn't handle.

[HoopsNY]

Melo is a bad example. He was always a ball stopper. Karl used to complain about it in Denver. So did Jackson in NY. In Melo's world everything had to revolve around Melo.

I didn't mention Melo to justify his style of play. I mentioned Melo to show that the league has determined that you simply can't play outside of the style that is expected now and obviously, that has a significant impact on everything else. It wasn't an organic shift.


You are just trying to revise history with Steph. He led the league twice in TS, in his 20s not his 30s. Durant had 4 straight years with a 63%+ TS with OKC. He played 81 games with a 64.7% TS at age 24. Kawhi had a 61.6% TS at age 24.

It doesn't matter if he led the league twice in his 20s. Steph's TS% from 2023 is the third highest of his career at 66%, at the age of 34. That's higher than his 2015 TS% (64%) where he won MVP. He averaged more points, had a higher ORTG, eFG%, and a higher TS%.

You might say, well, you're cherry picking one year and other players in history have done better than their prior MVP years in non-MVP years, but we see this amongst many of today's stars/superstars, so it's not an isolated incident. It's seems to be a trend which indicates that these players aren't better than earlier iterations of themselves. They've just adapted to a different style of play.

[HoopsNY]

Melo is a bad example. He was always a ball stopper. Karl used to complain about it in Denver. So did Jackson in NY. In Melo's world everything had to revolve around Melo.

I didn't mention Melo to justify his style of play. I mentioned Melo to show that the league has determined that you simply can't play outside of the style that is expected now and obviously, that has a significant impact on everything else. It wasn't an organic shift.


You are just trying to revise history with Steph. He led the league twice in TS, in his 20s not his 30s. Durant had 4 straight years with a 63%+ TS with OKC. He played 81 games with a 64.7% TS at age 24. Kawhi had a 61.6% TS at age 24.

It doesn't matter if he led the league twice in his 20s. Steph's TS% from 2023 is the third highest of his career at 66%, at the age of 34. That's higher than his 2015 TS% (64%) where he won MVP. He averaged more points, had a higher ORTG, eFG%, and a higher TS%.

You might say, well, you're cherry picking one year and other players in history have done better than their prior MVP years in non-MVP years, but we see this amongst many of today's stars/superstars, so it's not an isolated incident. It's seems to be a trend which indicates that these players aren't better than earlier iterations of themselves. They've just adapted to a different style of play.

[HoopsNY]

Him having one 27 point game is nice it's only one game. Game 5 he went 10 of 26 from the field but I'm not going to say that one game shows Tatum shuts him down. It's just one game. Also I doubt that was the best game of his career.

If the Lakers played Boston the goal of both teams would be to win so if we're talking about some hypothetical Tatum vs Gasol consideration of how their individual match-up fits into, affects and is affected by everything else is relevant. If Tatum or Gasol scores 4 straight buckets and it's looking easy like they're getting hot, the coaches will make adjustments. It's not going to happen in a vacuum. And more importantly, this discussion is about who wins in a Lakers/Celtics champion meet.

Game 5 was really an anomaly for the series. The first 4 games, he shot the ball at a 54% clip, with only 1 game being below 50% (44%). My point is that overall, this was his best series, at least statistically. And this comes with no Butler on the floor.

[HoopsNY]

The average team shot 78% from the foul line this year.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/free-throw-pct?date=2024-06-18

Back in 2006 the average team shot 74.6% from the line.

I am sure it was the "ecosystem" that made all the difference. :lol

I'm curious to know what percentage of those shots were taken by 4s and 5s in the early to mid 2000s as opposed to now? And how many of those players playing the 4 or 5 are actual 4s or 5s.

Also, players are shooting better, because shooting is emphasized. It doesn't mean the players are automatically "better". Otherwise, just cancel out the league's first 60 years and start right around 2015 or 2016. Because then the prior eras' greats weren't really that great.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Game 5 was really an anomaly for the series. The first 4 games, he shot the ball at a 54% clip, with only 1 game being below 50% (44%). My point is that overall, this was his best series, at least statistically. And this comes with no Butler on the floor.
So 2 out of 5 games his shooting was below-average, 3 out of 5 above average, one of those games was very good, one was fairly bad...nothing here is making it look like Tatum didn't do a decent job. Butler's absence didn't much change the way the Celtics defend him. Possibly if Butler was out there going off the Celtics would have tried putting Tatum on him but that's got nothing to do with this discussion. It did mean the Heat needed more from himbut he topped out at 25, even without their top guy he wasn't going off for 30+. If Tatum is an easy target shouldn't an All-Star on a team missing their best player be out there trying to destroy him? Tatum was the biggest Celtic on the floor for many possessions and we still didn't see that happen.

[tpols]

The funny thing about this thought experiment is the 2001 Lakers made even less 3s than the 2009 iteration. So they'd really be trash today.

Can you imagine prime Shaq trying to defend Tatum at the 3pt line? Whilst getting locked up by him on the other end?

Tatum was the same height and weight as Bulls Rodman. 6'8 240. And Rodman did a splendid job, so we can only logically deduce that Tatum would too.

I have learned so much in this thread! Thanks fellas!

[Real Men Wear Green]

You have to be a special kind of stupid to compare Gasol to Shaq.

[tpols]

You have to be a special kind of stupid to compare Gasol / Odom / Bynum trio to Shaq.


Listen up pal.

If Tatum can lock down a trio of premier 7 foot post scorers, what chance does Shaq stand?

And on the other end of the court how does a 375 lb lumbering Shaquille O'Neal keep up with the great Jayson Tatum chucking 3s?

We have ALL seen how great Tatum hits from deep in Bostons past two NBA Finals. He shot a blistering 26% from long range. And his running mate was on fire at 22%.

You can't ****ing stop that. Period.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Moving past the painful attempt at levity, Tatum is actually first in playoff points since 2020.He's a dangerous scorer. Ok, he wasn't hitting threes this postseason. He still averaged 25 points, 9.7 rebpunds and 6.3 assists.

You were colossally wrong about the Celtics and Mavs. You don't really understand basketball, logic, or really anything. Some people are stupid. It's ok. Jesus loves you. Probably.

[warriorfan]

Listen up pal.

If Tatum can lock down a trio of premier 7 foot post scorers, what chance does Shaq stand?

And on the other end of the court how does a 375 lb lumbering Shaquille O'Neal keep up with the great Jayson Tatum chucking 3s?

We have ALL seen how great Tatum hits from deep in Bostons past two NBA Finals. He shot a blistering 26% from long range. And his running mate was on fire at 22%.

You can't ****ing stop that. Period.

lmao. :applause:

[ILLsmak]

Moving past the painful attempt at levity, Tatum is actually first in playoff points since 2020.He's a dangerous scorer. Ok, he wasn't hitting threes this postseason. He still averaged 25 points, 9.7 rebpunds and 6.3 assists.

You were colossally wrong about the Celtics and Mavs. You don't really understand basketball, logic, or really anything. Some people are stupid. It's ok. Jesus loves you. Probably.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIdpx7-gims

I think him vs Lewis is similar to what it’d be vs tatum.

-Smak