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

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?

[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]

[QUOTE=Proctor;14941773]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.[/QUOTE]

:cheers:

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.

[b]Overall offense versus top-10 defenses only[/b]
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]

[b]Half-court points per play versus top-10 defenses only[/b]
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!

[b]Overall offense versus teams that are top 10 in defense and point differential[/b]
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]

[b]Half-court points per play versus teams that are top 10 in defense and point differential[/b]
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]

[b]Overall offense versus teams that are top 10 in defense, offense, and point differential[/b]
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]

[b]Half-court points per play versus teams that are top 10 in defense, offense, and point differential[/b]
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.

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.

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;14941708]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]

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

[QUOTE=90sgoat;14941802]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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?

[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]

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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14941832]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14941832]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.[/QUOTE]

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

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.

[QUOTE=Soundwave;14941949]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14941751]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][/QUOTE]

The link you provided doesn't give that.

[QUOTE]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]

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.

[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.[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14941996]The link you provided doesn't give that.[/quote] The link is to Adebayo 's shooting percentage when guarded by Tatum every season for his career.


[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE] 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.



[Quote]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?[/QUOTE] 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.

Apologies, statmuse ignored my question in the link.

[url]https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=bam+adebayos+fg%25+versus+jayson+tatum+in+2024[/url]

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.

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

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.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14942005][url]https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=bam+adebayos+fg%25+versus+jayson+tatum+in+2024[/url]

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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14942009]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.[/QUOTE] 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?

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14942008]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.[/QUOTE]



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.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14942016]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=warriorfan;14942019]freedom of movement and just all around how the game is called[/QUOTE]


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.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;14942019]freedom of movement and just all around how the game is called[/QUOTE]

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.

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

[QUOTE=tpols;14942036]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 [B]Finals Bostons star players shot like ass from 3.[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]


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.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14942021]Those aren't rules changes, and there was freedom of movement 10 years ago. There just weren't as many shooters.

[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=ILLsmak;14942066]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[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14942008]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14942012]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.[/QUOTE]

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"?


[QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14942016]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14942016]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14942195]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.[/QUOTE]


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.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14942196]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14942200]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.[/QUOTE]



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.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14942193]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"?[/quote]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.

[quote]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.[/QUOTE]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.

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.

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14942086]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14942353]Damn. I hit a home run with this one. Still waiting for that reply...[/QUOTE]

: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.

[QUOTE=tontoz;14942355]This guy thinks a team from 2010 would be just as good today :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

How many times did you edit this response?

First it was...

[QUOTE=tontoz;14942355]This guy thinks a team from 2010 would be just as good today :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Then just an emoji...

[QUOTE=tontoz;14942355]:oldlol:[/QUOTE]

And another...

[QUOTE=tontoz;14942355]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.[/QUOTE]

And then the end result!

[QUOTE=tontoz;14942355]: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.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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