Author Topic: 2000-2001 Lakers vs Modern day Warriors  (Read 1314 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: 2000-2001 Lakers vs Modern day Warriors
« Reply #30 on: September 23, 2017, 10:29:52 AM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3054
  • Tommy Points: 395
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.

Re: 2000-2001 Lakers vs Modern day Warriors
« Reply #31 on: September 23, 2017, 10:52:48 AM »

Offline ederson

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1872
  • Tommy Points: 178
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 ?

Re: 2000-2001 Lakers vs Modern day Warriors
« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2017, 11:13:14 AM »

Offline Somebody

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1237
  • Tommy Points: 133
  • Running in the 00s KANSEI DORIFUTO
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.

Re: 2000-2001 Lakers vs Modern day Warriors
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2017, 11:44:13 AM »

Offline Green-18

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 259
  • Tommy Points: 29
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.   

Re: 2000-2001 Lakers vs Modern day Warriors
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2017, 12:13:50 PM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3543
  • Tommy Points: 238
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.

Re: 2000-2001 Lakers vs Modern day Warriors
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2017, 05:53:30 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3586
  • Tommy Points: 324
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.