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

[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

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]

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.



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...y-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.