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

[QUOTE=tpols;14941658]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

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

What a weird guy :lol

[QUOTE=tontoz;14941645]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14941664]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.[/QUOTE]

No... let's be clear here.

[I]You[/I] 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

[QUOTE=tpols;14941673]No... let's be clear here.

[I]You[/I] 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[/QUOTE]You 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.

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:

[QUOTE=RRR3;14941696]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:[/QUOTE]

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.

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

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

[QUOTE=ILLsmak;14941641]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[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=tpols;14941706]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.

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

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[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;14941709]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? [B]You know that's not how the shit went down.
[/B]
[B]The Celtics are masterful at exploiting mismatches on offense[/B] and switching on D and not being exploited there. They'd lose the rebounding battle most likely though.[/QUOTE]


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

Spell it out.

[QUOTE=tpols;14941711]Who did Tatum and Brown shoot 26% and 23% from 3pt range against then? :lol

Spell it out.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;14941713][B]It's a 5 game sample and sometimes the shots just don't go down? [/B]And neither of them are particularly great 3pt shooters anyway?

Wow that easy.[/QUOTE]



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 [B]22%(!)[/B] 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.

[QUOTE=tpols;14941715]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 [B]22%(!)[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]
And yet they still shot better from 3 than the Mavs on higher volume.

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

[QUOTE=tpols;14941715]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 [B]22%(!)[/B] 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. [B]Their best scorers and shooters shot terribly from 3[/B].[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=tpols;14941715]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 [B]22%(!)[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of defense? Lmao.

[QUOTE=tpols;14941711]Who did Tatum and Brown shoot 26% and 23% from 3pt range against then? :lol

Spell it out.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;14941716]And yet they still shot better from 3 than the Mavs on higher volume.[/QUOTE]

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

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.

[QUOTE=tpols;14941722]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[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;14941724]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.[/QUOTE]

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

Spoiler alert...it does.

[QUOTE]
You're a national treasure.
[/QUOTE]

Oh stop... im bashful.

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

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.

[QUOTE=tpols;14941726]Oh stop... im bashful.

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

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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=tpols;14941722]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[/QUOTE]


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

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14941404]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14941750]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?[/quote] You are applying adebayo's overall numbers when the subject is just the defense of Tatum. That's a mistake.

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

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.

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

[QUOTE]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%.[/QUOTE]I don't think anyone is saying Gasol couldn't score.

[Quote]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.[/QUOTE] 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.

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

3-1 in the regular season

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

4-2 in the WCF

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

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.

[SIZE=1]*stats slightly vary depending on how possessions are calculated. NBA.com vs. Basketball Reference.[/SIZE]

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

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

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.

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14941760]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.[/QUOTE]


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

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14941760]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.[/QUOTE]
The Magic in 2009 took 5 less 3s per game than the 30th ranked team last year.

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."

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14941764]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."[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=tontoz;14941766]Did you even know that the Suns offense is below average relative to today's teams?[/QUOTE]
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.

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.

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.

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 [i]has[/i] 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!

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.

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14941771]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 [i]has[/i] 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%).

[B]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. [/B]

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![/QUOTE]

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.

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.

[b]Half-court points per play[/b]
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:

[QUOTE]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.

[B]Garbage Time[/B]
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.

[U]The Gritty Details[/U]
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.

[B]Projected Heave Possessions[/B]
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.

[U]The Gritty Details[/U]
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.[/QUOTE]