RealGM

They'd thrive just as they did before. The Triangle would be more potent with the freedom of movement rule. Not to mention the legalized third (gather) step. They have the positional/lineup flexibility to be versatile, just as they were back then against proto-modern teams like Phoenix and Orlando. They also have the personnel to increase their 3PAr if needed. But I don't think it's as necessary as you'd think.

I'll keep my argument simple:

1) Size and offensive rebounding are still incredibly valuable.

It seemed as though there was a period of time in the 2010s where transition defense and smaller lineups were prioritized over offensive rebounding and size. But in the '20s, we've begun to see a return to traditionally valued second chance points. We've seen Taylor Jenkins' Memphis (2021-22) and Tom Thibodeau's Knicks (2022-23 and 2023-24) utilize offensive rebounding to create elite offenses despite below-average eFG%:

MEM 2021-22: 5th ORtg; +2.6 rORtg [23rd eFG%, 4th TOV%, 1st ORB%, 23rd FT/FGA]

NYK 2022-23: 3rd ORtg; +3 rORtg [20th eFG%, 5th TOV%, 2nd ORB%, 11th FT/FGA]
NYK 2023-24: 7th ORtg; +2.9 rORtg [16th eFG%, 15th TOV%, 1st ORB%, 15th FT/FGA]
NYK PLAYOFFS 2023-24: 2nd ORtg; +5.1 rORtg [10th/16 eFG%, 2nd/16 TOV%, 1st/16 ORB%, 5th/16 FT/FGA]

Both Memphis and New York utilize Aaron Fearne-style Tagging Up tactics to maximize offensive rebounding chances without sacrificing transition defense.

2) Elite modern offenses can and have been accomplished with high-volume mid-range and post-up shot selection.

I'm surprised this wasn't about the 2018-19 Spurs. They had the third-best half-court offense despite ranking 26th in 3PM, 30th in 3PA, and 30th in 3PAr.

Its overall offense was third-best in the playoffs: +3.0 rORtg compared to the 2018-19 playoffs league-average ORtg. +4.1 opponent-adjusted rORtg if you adjust for Denver's regular season DRtg. The Nuggets had the 10th-best regular-season defense, coming in at 1.5 points better (-1.5 rDRtg) than the league average. So, it was a solid defense they were up against.

SAS was 30th in playoff 3PAr (.233); a whopping -14.6 r3PAr/-38.5%/61.5 3PAr+ compared to the playoff average 3PAr (.379).

It's only seven games but it's food for thought. I made a thread on this several months back but no one responded:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2336902&hilit=Spurs

The KD/Kyrie Brooklyn Nets were doing similar things.

3) High-performing offenses can look any number of ways. Some leverage shot-making (eFG%) more while others lean on differing blends of FTr, ORB%, and TOV%.

4) Dual-big PF/C tandems have resulted in elite defenses in the modern era. See San Antonio from 2014-2018. 4.9 rDRtg while featuring Splitter-Duncan, LMA-Duncan, LMA-Gasol starting lineups.

5) There is no specific requirement for the number of three-point shooters or a vaguely defined amount of spacing for a lineup to be effective.

Another poor-faith stance is boiling the validity of a lineup to the number of three-point shooters or vague/undefined spacing. There have been many high-performing lineups in recent years with multiple non-shooters. Here are some examples:

(NBA.com and Basketball Reference lineup numbers vary slightly. This is due to a different possession formula I believe)



GSW's 2022-23 starting lineup. Featuring two non-shooters (Green, Looney), it was statistically far and away the best starting five in the NBA.

2023: S. Curry - K. Thompson - D. Green - A. Wiggins - K. Looney

- 27 games played, 331 minutes played
- 128.0 ORtg; 106.1 DRtg; +21.9 Net Rating (1st [min. 80 minutes played])

Kobe took a lot of long 2s, often at 40-42%. If he plays today, instead of a pull up long 2, that is now a step back 3. At 40% (or slightly below since its a small step back), that is now a great shot.

That being said, I think the 2009 Lakers would do well, but not 2010. Ron Artest was a poor 3 point shooter, whereas Ariza was a very good one. They would have very poor spacing on the 2010 team today.

They would do will in the 20's, as it is a relatively weak era.

They would have struggled quite a bit in the 10's

They wouldn't even make the West playoffs today.

FrodoBaggins wrote:See San Antonio from 2014-2018. 4.9 rDRtg while featuring Splitter-Duncan, LMA-Duncan, LMA-Gasol starting lineups.

I'm not sure about the general idea here. But that's not the modern era. That was the transition era from their era to this era which is much different.

Asianiac_24 wrote:Kobe took a lot of long 2s, often at 40-42%. If he plays today, instead of a pull up long 2, that is now a step back 3. At 40% (or slightly below since its a small step back), that is now a great shot.

That being said, I think the 2009 Lakers would do well, but not 2010. Ron Artest was a poor 3 point shooter, whereas Ariza was a very good one. They would have very poor spacing on the 2010 team today.

Kobe shouldn't be taking 3's. He was the star of the show...while he could take a few more, he should continue today attack the basket and shooting mid range. Just not with those post ups where he turns his back 3/4 of the court. Which is also why I'm not sure Phil could adapt the triangle like Kerr did, but Kerr pretty clearly has shown us the triangle's core concepts can be mixed with motion offense and work today.

One_and_Done wrote:They wouldn't even make the West playoffs today.

Some of your anti-Kobe takes are very strange and laughable.

Even if you hate Kobe, it’s laughable to write off Pau Gasol who was absolutely dominating opposing bigs over a 3-4 year stretch. Odom and Bynum were no slouch’s either.

Of course they’d dominate today. I don’t think a team like the Celtics would be equipped to deal with that Lakers front court. Pau would absolutely dominate them.

If the Timberwolves made the WCF with pretty much a downgraded version of the Lakers (Ant/Kobe, Pau/Towns, Bynum/Gobert), then Lakers had Odom, I doubt the Lakers would be missing the playoffs. I think they easily beat the Mavs.

Celtics I’m not so sure, but it would be a really good series.

They’d be doing very well in todays league. The team around them would be put together by a competent front office as well, so sky’s the limit. What a loss Dr Buss and Kobe were to the franchise and basketball fans.

Asianiac_24 wrote:Kobe took a lot of long 2s, often at 40-42%. If he plays today, instead of a pull up long 2, that is now a step back 3. At 40% (or slightly below since its a small step back), that is now a great shot.

That being said, I think the 2009 Lakers would do well, but not 2010. Ron Artest was a poor 3 point shooter, whereas Ariza was a very good one. They would have very poor spacing on the 2010 team today.

Artest had developed into a good 3 point shooter by then in his career, but for some reason as soon as he got to the Lakers it went to **** again. If he plays today maybe he has the shooting coaches to maintain his good shooting years.

he got .399 from deep the year before he joined the Lakers and 0.380 the year before that

Frank Dux wrote:Even if you hate Kobe, it’s laughable to write off Pau Gasol who was absolutely dominating opposing bigs over a 3-4 year stretch. Odom and Bynum were no slouch’s either.

Of course they’d dominate today. I don’t think a team like the Celtics would be equipped to deal with that Lakers front court. Pau would absolutely dominate them.

The issue would be their scoring post 2020. Like it or not, this isn't 2019 even anymore. You really do have to hit a lot of 3's to keep up with teams right now. That said...you're certainly right that all those guys would excel today. I'm not sure how well they work as a unit at once though. That's where this gets interesting. They don't have to just be better offensively than they were back then. They need to be a LOT more efficient.

They don't have enough 3pt shooting. Period. Their perimeter D would be problematic too.

I think the biggest reason it would work is that in today's game Pau would've spent his prime at C and would be considered extremely skilled. And while he wasn't a huge 3pt shooter, he was skilled enough to get good at it in an nba that celebrates it. He was good out to 20ft and had top tier post skills by today's standards. I think many of the early 2000s PFs do that in today's league. They were all like 7ft tall playing PF. Pau, Duncan, Dirk, O'Neal, Sheed, Garnett. In today's game they'd be forced to play C, and I do think they'd dominate.

As far as Kobe, I just think he dominates most eras. I don't know if he's the best player but he's still an all nba player at SG. But I do think out of the two the more shocking revelation would be Pau Gasols dominance. I think it would stand out.

Nazrmohamed wrote:I think the biggest reason it would work is that in today's game Pau would've spent his prime at C and would be considered extremely skilled. And while he wasn't a huge 3pt shooter, he was skilled enough to get good at it in an nba that celebrates it. He was good out to 20ft and had top tier post skills by today's standards. I think many of the early 2000s PFs do that in today's league. They were all like 7ft tall playing PF. Pau, Duncan, Dirk, O'Neal, Sheed, Garnett. In today's game they'd be forced to play C, and I do think they'd dominate.

As far as Kobe, I just think he dominates most eras. I don't know if he's the best player but he's still an all nba player at SG. But I do think out of the two the more shocking revelation would be Pau Gasols dominance. I think it would stand out.

You didn't really explain why it would work. I think we all agree, those two would be awesome today. The rest of the roster is actually the discussion. They are the reasons to get clicks but don't really matter here.

The Kobe/Pau Lakers are the Timberwolves.

Antman = Kobe

Towns, Gobert, and Naz = Pau, Bynum and Odom

Jaden McDaniels = Trevor Ariza

Conley = Fisher

Towards the end (2010-11), Pau and Bynum in particular were getting torn apart by high pick and rolls/floaters.

But I can safely say 2008-10 they were still mobile enough to hang on the perimeter. The Triangle emphasises offensive spacing and if anyone doubled off their man, there were offensive rebounds to be had.

The issue was always being able to generate enough outside shooting to prevent defenses from collapsing (even today's bigs are overall smaller and wouldn't keep the Lakers from playing volleyball on the glass like they did to bigs back then), and the 2008-10 teams did that well enough. It was always a trade-off (of interior scoring for outside shooting) that allowed the Lakers stayed just above the required offensive minimum to keep 2 all star big men on the floor and to greatly influence what sort of scoring opposition teams could put out.

Pre-3 point revolution, teams would still try to get into the Lakers trees and score over and through them. Post-3 point revolution, they would negate the greatest aspect of the Lakers defense and force those Lakers to go small. I.e., they would not play into the Lakers game plan by forgoing the interior arm wrestle and instead play a different small ball game.

Lakers would probably trade Bynum for another athletic 3 and D player in order to adjust to today's style.

Kobe would absolutely still wreck anything and everything thrown at him.

LockoutSeason wrote:The Kobe/Pau Lakers are the Timberwolves.

Antman = Kobe

Towns, Gobert, and Naz = Pau, Bynum and Odom

Jaden McDaniels = Trevor Ariza

Conley = Fisher

Except every one of the Wolves guys you just named is better and more mobile than their counterparts, especially in today's setting.

One_and_Done wrote:

LockoutSeason wrote:The Kobe/Pau Lakers are the Timberwolves.

Antman = Kobe

Towns, Gobert, and Naz = Pau, Bynum and Odom

Jaden McDaniels = Trevor Ariza

Conley = Fisher

Except every one of the Wolves guys you just named is better and more mobile than their counterparts, especially in today's setting.

No they aren't. Kobe is easily better than Ant and while Gobert/Naz give the Wolves a better defensive frontcourt, the Lakers' bigs are clearly superior offensively given their excellent passing (Pau, Odom).

Djoker wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:

LockoutSeason wrote:The Kobe/Pau Lakers are the Timberwolves.

Antman = Kobe

Towns, Gobert, and Naz = Pau, Bynum and Odom

Jaden McDaniels = Trevor Ariza

Conley = Fisher

Except every one of the Wolves guys you just named is better and more mobile than their counterparts, especially in today's setting.

No they aren't. Kobe is easily better than Ant and while Gobert/Naz give the Wolves a better defensive frontcourt, the Lakers' bigs are clearly superior offensively given their excellent passing (Pau, Odom).

I agree. I think LA would be balanced on both ends like they were back then. And they'd be great in the clutch. LA's great passing and Kobe's tough two-point shot-making would lead to a great raw FG% and a nice low TOV% and strong ORB% late in the fourth.