CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: Green-18 on September 22, 2017, 11:41:04 AM
-
I'm watching game one of the 2001 NBA Finals and it's a blast watching AI take on the Lakers. That game 1 was such a classic.
Anyways, I'm curious as to how people think the peak Lakers would fair against the Golden State Warriors under modern rules? I would expect a 7 game series. We all know the Warriors have the star power but Shaq would absolutely destroy their entire team. Shaq had significantly more competition at the Center spot than he would have had against the Warriors. I think 35 PPG on 60% shooting is a guarantee. 40 PPG isn't unrealistic. Kobe also showed quite a bit of defensive versatility during the playoffs that season.
Another strength of that Lakers squad is the amount of role players that defended at a high level and had the ability to hit clutch shots. Fisher, Horry, Fox, Grant, and Harper would have all helped to slow down the Warriors attack. The 2001 Lakers were an elite defensive unit when everyone was dialed in and focused.
The biggest argument against LA is pointing to the 2001-2002 Kings that should have beaten them the next season. However, I think the final group during the LA 3-peat was unfocused and inferior to the first 2.
On a side note, it would be interesting to see how the 2001 Kings would fare in today's NBA. That team was so deep and balanced. They were built to play today's game.
-
Shaq would be bigger and stronger than anyone else, but GSW is still comfortably better. I don't see how LAL would slow down their offense.
Since you mentioned the LAL bench, the GSW bench is also pretty good this year: Iguodala, Livingston, Casspi, Young.
-
There's a very good article up on Celticshub about changes in the defensive 3-second rule that you might be interested in. Great clips that show how much harder it is for today's players to work 1 on 1 than it used to be, and why pace and space is critical. Really hard to know how that Lakers team, built for a different era, would do.
I'd definitely be interested to see how Shaq would do if he had to guard a high pick and roll involving Curry-Draymond or KD-Draymond.
-
Nah...
Modern day Celtics are gonna crush em Warriors in the nuts.
8) 8) 8)
-
I think the Lakers would win in 5 or 6 games. Shaq was in his prime during that season. Draymond Green would get destroyed and be in foul trouble if he had to guard Shaq, regardless of any 3 second rule. Who would slow down Kobe? Plus that Lakers team had two former Celtics in Brian Shaw and Rick Fox.
-
Shaq would be bigger and stronger than anyone else, but GSW is still comfortably better. I don't see how LAL would slow down their offense.
Since you mentioned the LAL bench, the GSW bench is also pretty good this year: Iguodala, Livingston, Casspi, Young.
I think the Lakers could put up a better defensive effort than any current NBA team, at least in the half court. The key to the series would be preventing transition points.
Fisher and Lue would be responsible for Steph. I think they could do a satisfactory job of making him take tough shots. Kobe, Fox, and Harper would collectively need to deal with Durant and Klay. This is probably the biggest struggle that LA would run into. I would start with Fox on Durant and Kobe on Klay. Kobe's offense would be too important for him to waste too much energy guarding Durant early in the game. I would also expect Horry to replace Grant in the starting lineup to effectively deal with Draymond. Another defensive option would be to have Kobe pressure Steph full court when Durant wasn't in the game. Kobe did this very often in his early days. I'd imagine the Lakers style of play would be similar to the current Grizzlies but with two of the greatest players in league history. LA had the personnel to switch defensively when necessary. The tempo would be very slow.
The high pick & roll would be difficult for Shaq to handle but he was still a great athlete at that point. I think some of Shaq's struggles with the pick & roll were due to a lack of focus and conditioning. It became a much bigger issue after they won the 2nd title. I also think Horace Grant would take a few minutes at Center once the Warriors went to their small lineup.
-
I think the Lakers would win in 5 or 6 games. Shaq was in his prime during that season. Draymond Green would get destroyed and be in foul trouble if he had to guard Shaq, regardless of any 3 second rule. Who would slow down Kobe? Plus that Lakers team had two former Celtics in Brian Shaw and Rick Fox.
I don't think LA would have enough success to win in 5 but you are right about prime Shaq. Shaq averaged 36 PPG in the Finals on 59% shooting during the 3-Peat era. Zaza, McGee, and Draymond would get absolutely annihilated. 40+ PPG would be very realistic. The problem for Shaq is that the Lakers would need to work really hard to keep him out of foul trouble.
-
Dikembe was 34 that season. He was still a very good defender (he even won DPOY), but his age couldn't keep up with Shaq and he provided nothing offensively. Sure the Warriors wouldn't be able to defend Shaq (even with ZaZa and McGee), but it isn't like Shaq would be able to run up and down the floor either. He would be totally worthless defensively as ZaZa/McGee/West or whomever would just stand in the corner and draw Shaq out of the paint taking him out of the game on one end of the floor.
-
The thing about the Warriors is they are never more than 90 seconds from running off 20 points and turning any game into a blowout. LA's foil would be Shaq who also couldn't be stopped within about 8 feet.
3 is more than 2, and Shaq needs someone to get him the ball.
GSW in 6 (tops).
-
Nobody could guard Kobe or Shaq. The Lakers surrounded them with quality role players so there were no glaring holes on offense or defense. Lakers (And most of the greatest teams ever) would punish the warriors back in the day.
-
The 01 Lakers attempted 15.5 three pointers per game and hit only 34.4% of them, so that seems like a problem against the Warriors.
I suspect Shaq would score a lot, Kobe would be inefficient, and the rest of the team would clank a lot of mid-range jumpers that the Warriors would be happy to concede.
Shaq would be difficult to play in crunch time when the Warriors have 5 quality three point shooters on the floor and they can hack him any time he gets the ball.
-
I think people underestimate Shaq's dominance. Teams that were contenders used to sign and carry a minimum of three sizeable centers just to deal with the foul trouble that Shaq caused every game. You can't put Draymond on Shaq. If GSW did, they would hold Shaq to one point on the five possessions that Dray fouls him and then Shaq will score a bucket 70% of the other possessions and also assist to teammates plenty of other times. LAL would be scoring attacking that matchup at a very high offensive efficiency.
GSW might be able to match that kind of offensive efficiency with Draymond at the 5 on offense, but I don't think they can exceed it. Remember that Shaq averaged over 12 fta per game and Kobe got to the line 9+ times himself too. As a team, they averaged .349 fta for every fga, which means they were shooting FTs about 1 out of every 4 possessions. That along with a very low turnover rate (13.3 per 100 possessions) and would slow the pace of the game down a lot which would limit GSW's ability to get out in transition where they thrive.
-
It would not be a massacre by the Warriors , they would most likey prevail in a series .....as refed by today . Early in Shaqs time , the refs would have let Shaq dominate , he was huge and Green would be crushed . Still Curry ,KG and gang hitting high percent of threes , with Kobe not playing defense , Warriors would win best out 7 .
-
Shaq would be difficult to play in crunch time when the Warriors have 5 quality three point shooters on the floor and they can hack him any time he gets the ball.
That's true in crunch time. But what % does Draymond hit open 3s at (the 5th shooter I assume)? 50%?
So every possession, you're basically basically 1.5 points for GSW for every 1 point for LAL. Its an advantage, but not an overwhelming one because you can only utilize this strategy for so long before these guys foul out. With Kobe and Shaq's ability to draw fouls all game long, you probably only do this 6 times or so, which equals a total of 3 point difference. Kind of a big deal sure, especially in a close game. But then you're risking all your studs being in foul trouble if the game goes into overtime?
-
3 is more than 2, and Shaq needs someone to get him the ball.
GSW in 6 (tops).
You're neglecting the % rates that GSW and LAL would connect on these 3s and 2s. Its more efficient to connect on 60% of your 2s than on 38% of your 3s.
-
I think people underestimate Shaq's dominance. Teams that were contenders used to sign and carry a minimum of three sizeable centers just to deal with the foul trouble that Shaq caused every game. You can't put Draymond on Shaq. If GSW did, they would hold Shaq to one point on the five possessions that Dray fouls him and then Shaq will score a bucket 70% of the other possessions and also assist to teammates plenty of other times. LAL would be scoring attacking that matchup at a very high offensive efficiency.
This assumes they could get the ball to Shaq without any trouble, or that the Warriors wouldn't double or triple team him, feeling confident in doing so given LA's lack of deadly outside shooters (by modern standards).
-
I think people underestimate Shaq's dominance. Teams that were contenders used to sign and carry a minimum of three sizeable centers just to deal with the foul trouble that Shaq caused every game. You can't put Draymond on Shaq. If GSW did, they would hold Shaq to one point on the five possessions that Dray fouls him and then Shaq will score a bucket 70% of the other possessions and also assist to teammates plenty of other times. LAL would be scoring attacking that matchup at a very high offensive efficiency.
GSW might be able to match that kind of offensive efficiency with Draymond at the 5 on offense, but I don't think they can exceed it. Remember that Shaq averaged over 12 fta per game and Kobe got to the line 9+ times himself too. As a team, they averaged .349 fta for every fga, which means they were shooting FTs about 1 out of every 4 possessions. That along with a very low turnover rate (13.3 per 100 possessions) and would slow the pace of the game down a lot which would limit GSW's ability to get out in transition where they thrive.
Shaq's dominance is freakish to go back and watch. You are right about the Lakers dictating the pace. The Warriors would have their transition opportunities cut by more than 50%. The free throw rate and turnover stats are also a crucial element of the equation.
I honestly believe it would be a 7 game series. If anything I would argue that late game free throws would be the undoing of the Lakers.
-
3 is more than 2, and Shaq needs someone to get him the ball.
GSW in 6 (tops).
You're neglecting the % rates that GSW and LAL would connect on these 3s and 2s. Its more efficient to connect on 60% of your 2s than on 38% of your 3s.
You're assuming a modern defense would allow a team without any great three point shooters to shoot 60% on twos.
Also, none of the defenders on that Lakers team would be used to defending the kind of aggressive three point shooting that's in the league today, so the Warriors would almost certainly shoot much better than 38% from deep.
-
It would not be a massacre by the Warriors , they would most likey prevail in a series .....as refed by today . Early in Shaqs time , the refs would have let Shaq dominate , he was huge and Green would be crushed . Still Curry ,KG and gang hitting high percent of threes , with Kobe not playing defense , Warriors would win best out 7 .
The Kobe not playing defense argument does not apply to the 2001 Lakers. Phil Jackson routinely had Kobe pressure the opposing teams PG with great results. When dialed in Kobe was an elite perimeter defender.
-
I'm leaning Golden State.
Warriors would get Shaq gassed and wear him down with the tempo & spacing of their big men. Of course, if Kobe/Fisher/Fox undercut Klay or Steph, its a whole other story.
-
These things are so hard to compare because the league is so different, even just 15 years later.
I think LA would probably win if GS had to go back in time and play in 2001 and the Lakers would win if they had to go forward in time and play now.
On some neutral court, in a pick-up game... I think GS just rains 3's and Shaq is exhausted trying to chase Draymond around picks.
-
I'll take modern day Curry/Thompson/Durant/Green over 00 Kobe/Fisher/Fox.
Zaza Pachulia would be a nuisance to Shaq, but use Hack-A-Shaq and it's all over for them.
-
Shaq in his prime was the most unstoppable force to ever play the game. Nobody is stopping him from doing whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to whomever he wants.
Nothing else is really worth discussing because that is how dominant Shaq was. It would be funny to watch Dray get murdered trying to stop him though.
-
GS would win.
Zone defense was not allowed in 2000. It is now. Shaq was a beast, true. But lanes are clogged now in ways they were not in 2000. I believe 2001 is when they started allowing zones, but I could be wrong.
Use the old rules, and GS would not be as dominant because of players like Shaq. With current rules, it is hard to beat GS's roster construction.
-
I hate these arguments. The era matters.
-
GS would win.
Zone defense was not allowed in 2000. It is now. Shaq was a beast, true. But lanes are clogged now in ways they were not in 2000. I believe 2001 is when they started allowing zones, but I could be wrong.
Use the old rules, and GS would not be as dominant because of players like Shaq. With current rules, it is hard to beat GS's roster construction.
Its not a true zone though, defensive 3 secs is still in effect.
-
For Shaq's FTs in the clutch...he was actually very good at making FTs when they counted, I saw a statistic having Shaq shoot over 70% in the clutch at the FT line when he was in LA, I would worry more about Shaq not making FTs early on in the game and letting the Warriors run them out of the gym before crunch time. That being said I have to take the Lakers, Shaq was still an athletic beast in 01 and could definitely guard the high PnR acceptably at least while getting 44/22 every game on 70% shooting.
-
I'm going to pick the Warriors. Only because I hate every laker team ever. And also because I hate Shaq and Kobe and can't pull for them.
-
It really depends on the rules. Modern day, I don't see the Lakers winning. There's just way too much freedom given to perimeter players which opens up shooting, and big guys get the short end of the stick. The big guys who are successful today play like big guards rather than traditional big men.
In the 00's rules, I don't see GSW taking the series. The hand check rule was implemented in 2003. Curry is a great shooter but with Lue literally holding him (the way he defended Iverson), I can see how Steph's efficiency would dip. Plus, no one would be able to check Shaq. The guy whose game would probably suffer the most is actually Draymond, imo. Idk, whenever I watch him, I always get the impression that he has passable, borderline sloppy handles. But he gets away with it because you can't check guys like you used to because of the freedom of movement rules. Defensively he'll still be good but he might have to play the more traditional stretch 4 role than the small ball death lineup 5.
-
It really depends on the rules. Modern day, I don't see the Lakers winning. There's just way too much freedom given to perimeter players which opens up shooting, and big guys get the short end of the stick. The big guys who are successful today play like big guards rather than traditional big men.
In the 00's rules, I don't see GSW taking the series. The hand check rule was implemented in 2003. Curry is a great shooter but with Lue literally holding him (the way he defended Iverson), I can see how Steph's efficiency would dip. Plus, no one would be able to check Shaq. The guy whose game would probably suffer the most is actually Draymond, imo. Idk, whenever I watch him, I always get the impression that he has passable, borderline sloppy handles. But he gets away with it because you can't check guys like you used to because of the freedom of movement rules. Defensively he'll still be good but he might have to play the more traditional stretch 4 role than the small ball death lineup 5.
I agree with this but Rod Strickland looked sloppy with his handles, however he was insanely good at dribbling to the guys who guarded him so I'll say maybe on this one.
-
I think its comical to think that if that Lakers team will play in this era they wouldnt be able to adapt. Shaq was mobile then, and the Lakers were full of plus defenders in their roster. Just like I believe the 2008 Celtics can play Stevens' style, I think the Lakers can adjust their style to suit this era.
The only real problem for the Lakers would be Durant. Esp if we get the one we had in the finals.
-
I get the "Who can stop Shaq argument"
But doen't it create a similar problem at the other end ? Who can Shaq guard ? Yes he was agile , extremely agile for a guy that huge but running around trying to defend against this kind of passing game would tire him to death which would have an effect to him offensive play.
Unless you can hide him ... but how could you against GS ?
-
I get the "Who can stop Shaq argument"
But doen't it create a similar problem at the other end ? Who can Shaq guard ? Yes he was agile , extremely agile for a guy that huge but running around trying to defend against this kind of passing game would tire him to death which would have an effect to him offensive play.
Unless you can hide him ... but how could you against GS ?
Hiding him on Zaza would be enough already, also Shaq probably wore out more centers in the league than any other save for Russell, Kareem and Wilt so I wouldn't be afraid of him getting worn out, if he is the entire warriors frontcourt would have been fouled out or dying on the floor.
-
I get the "Who can stop Shaq argument"
But doen't it create a similar problem at the other end ? Who can Shaq guard ? Yes he was agile , extremely agile for a guy that huge but running around trying to defend against this kind of passing game would tire him to death which would have an effect to him offensive play.
Unless you can hide him ... but how could you against GS ?
Hiding him on Zaza would be enough already, also Shaq probably wore out more centers in the league than any other save for Russell, Kareem and Wilt so I wouldn't be afraid of him getting worn out, if he is the entire warriors frontcourt would have been fouled out or dying on the floor.
Like someone else mentioned, Shaq required a competing roster to carry 3 legitimate bigs to waste fouls against Shaq. The Warriors would need to fundamentally change their style of play. If they didn't adjust then the Lakers would shoot 40+ free throw per game.
I also agree with a previous poster who mentioned that the Lakers would adjust to the new style of play. Robert Horry would see the biggest bump in minutes per game and production. He only played 20 MPG in the playoffs compared to 30 for Horace Grant. It was more suitable for the Lakers to play Grant that season because of the tremendous advantage they had on the boards. They simply didn't to utilize their perimeter shooters.
The 2001-2002 season is a much better example of how Horry would be used. He played over 30 MPG during the playoffs and shot just under 39% from three. Advanced metrics would lead to Horry taking at least 5 threes per game, especially with the attention Shaq would receive. Kobe would also flourish with more freedom to shoot the 3. His percentages were terrible during the Shaq era but he almost never looked to shoot from beyond the arc. Only 2 attempts per game and more often than not one of those were late in the shot clock. Expect Kobe to be up around 35% as opposed to the 30% from 2001.
The zone defense rules would definitely present problems for the Lakers, but the less physical brand of basketball would also help the Lakers.
I still maintain that it would be a 7 games series. The Warriors would need to adjust just as much as the Lakers.
-
I get the "Who can stop Shaq argument"
But doen't it create a similar problem at the other end ? Who can Shaq guard ? Yes he was agile , extremely agile for a guy that huge but running around trying to defend against this kind of passing game would tire him to death which would have an effect to him offensive play.
Unless you can hide him ... but how could you against GS ?
Hiding him on Zaza would be enough already, also Shaq probably wore out more centers in the league than any other save for Russell, Kareem and Wilt so I wouldn't be afraid of him getting worn out, if he is the entire warriors frontcourt would have been fouled out or dying on the floor.
Like someone else mentioned, Shaq required a competing roster to carry 3 legitimate bigs to waste fouls against Shaq. The Warriors would need to fundamentally change their style of play. If they didn't adjust then the Lakers would shoot 40+ free throw per game.
I also agree with a previous poster who mentioned that the Lakers would adjust to the new style of play. Robert Horry would see the biggest bump in minutes per game and production. He only played 20 MPG in the playoffs compared to 30 for Horace Grant. It was more suitable for the Lakers to play Grant that season because of the tremendous advantage they had on the boards. They simply didn't to utilize their perimeter shooters.
The 2001-2002 season is a much better example of how Horry would be used. He played over 30 MPG during the playoffs and shot just under 39% from three. Advanced metrics would lead to Horry taking at least 5 threes per game, especially with the attention Shaq would receive. Kobe would also flourish with more freedom to shoot the 3. His percentages were terrible during the Shaq era but he almost never looked to shoot from beyond the arc. Only 2 attempts per game and more often than not one of those were late in the shot clock. Expect Kobe to be up around 35% as opposed to the 30% from 2001.
The zone defense rules would definitely present problems for the Lakers, but the less physical brand of basketball would also help the Lakers.
I still maintain that it would be a 7 games series. The Warriors would need to adjust just as much as the Lakers.
The improved overall 3pt shooting % does quite a bit to negate the Shaq effect. 40=60. And I would contend guarding Shaq was no harder than pull-up 35 foot 3 pointers. Think about it.
I don't see LA stopping a team with great passing and 5 shooters, certainly not with Shaq on the floor, and LA has no chance without him. So it's about Shaq scoring 2 at a time, not hitting free throws, and not keeping up with the ball on defense. It's an inside-out team vs a team that can effectively play outside-in. I'll bet with the new math. The style of play would be forced by GS as the opponent must shoot 3s and play GS's game after GS goes on one of their 21-2 runs.
-
I haven't seen anyone mention how LA's defense would have to fundamentally change to play GS. The Lakers always had Shaq near the basket protecting the rim (something he is highly underrated for). If Shaq has to move out to the perimeter to stick with Draymond, the lane is going to be wide open for Curry and Durant. Either someone slides in to prevent layups or they're leaving someone open on the perimeter.