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

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14941172]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.

[B]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.[/B]

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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14941142]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.[/QUOTE]


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.

[QUOTE=tpols;14941229]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.[/QUOTE]



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

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.

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

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 [i]that[/i]? 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.

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

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14941322]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.[/quote]

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.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14941322]And claiming they were the third best playoff offense when they played 7 games seems rather disingenuous :lol[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14941003]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).[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;14941244]


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?

[/QUOTE]


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

[QUOTE=ILLsmak;14941385]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. [/quote]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.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]We saw Paul Pierce Ray and Tony Allen defend Bryant solidly. Brown Tatum and Holliday are no worse.

[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]"Deeply flawed?" Please explain that because they're is no justification for that statement at all.

[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]Again they've been doing it for two years. You don't seem to know how big Tatum actually is.

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.