00 & 01 Lakers with 1999 Kobe

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,932
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: 00 & 01 Lakers with 1999 Kobe 

Post#21 » by OhayoKD » Wed Jul 19, 2023 5:39 pm

70sFan wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
70sFan wrote:Basketball doesn't work that way in such small samples.

It works that way more often than it doesn't. What exactly is giving you insight that the Lakers are losing in this hypothetical?

Well, the Lakers would not have had any perimeter creators and their second scoring option would be... Fox? Fisher? These players can't create their own shots. I guess their defense would be still quite good without Kobe (assuming the same level of focus from others), but they'd lose a lot on offensive end and once you start taking tough shots and making more turnovers, your defense also starts to look significantly worse.

I don't understand how it is even a question. Basketball isn't a game of the sum of parts. Kobe's value is not +20 in absolute sense, but the Lakers were very reliant on his playmaking and shot creation. I doubt they'd clear the West, let alone win 4 series in a row.

Kobe was not worth 20 points even situationally. Yes they would be worse. Yes their offense and potentially defense would slide. But that they slide by so much a historically big blowout becomes a loss is not something that follows from any of these points. Small samples increase uncertainity and to an extent better players become more valuable vs tougher opponents. If kobe is out they slant more defensively. Flawed rosters can still win titles. Just ask the 2021 Bucks.

And anyway, the claim here was not "clearing the west', it was beating a similarly flawed team they obliterated.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,839
And1: 25,175
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: 00 & 01 Lakers with 1999 Kobe 

Post#22 » by 70sFan » Wed Jul 19, 2023 5:43 pm

OhayoKD wrote:
70sFan wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:It works that way more often than it doesn't. What exactly is giving you insight that the Lakers are losing in this hypothetical?

Well, the Lakers would not have had any perimeter creators and their second scoring option would be... Fox? Fisher? These players can't create their own shots. I guess their defense would be still quite good without Kobe (assuming the same level of focus from others), but they'd lose a lot on offensive end and once you start taking tough shots and making more turnovers, your defense also starts to look significantly worse.

I don't understand how it is even a question. Basketball isn't a game of the sum of parts. Kobe's value is not +20 in absolute sense, but the Lakers were very reliant on his playmaking and shot creation. I doubt they'd clear the West, let alone win 4 series in a row.

Kobe was not worth 20 points even situationally. Yes they would be worse. Yes their offense and potentially defense would slide. But that they slide by so much a historically big blowout becomes a loss is not something that follows from any of these points. Small samples increase uncertainity and to an extent better players become more valuable vs tougher opponents. If kobe is out they slant more defensively. Flawed rosters can still win titles. Just ask the 2021 Bucks.

Kobe doesn't need to be worth 20 points for Lakers to lose the first two games against the Spurs. Even if we assume two blowouts in games 3 and 4, now we would have had 2-2 series and the Spurs had HCA.

7 games series is way more dynamic than just looking at average point differential.

Also, comparing 2001 Lakers without Kobe to 2021 Bucks is funny, considering that the Bucks had like 4 out of 5 best players in this comparison.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,932
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: 00 & 01 Lakers with 1999 Kobe 

Post#23 » by OhayoKD » Wed Jul 19, 2023 6:14 pm

70sFan wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
70sFan wrote:Well, the Lakers would not have had any perimeter creators and their second scoring option would be... Fox? Fisher? These players can't create their own shots. I guess their defense would be still quite good without Kobe (assuming the same level of focus from others), but they'd lose a lot on offensive end and once you start taking tough shots and making more turnovers, your defense also starts to look significantly worse.

I don't understand how it is even a question. Basketball isn't a game of the sum of parts. Kobe's value is not +20 in absolute sense, but the Lakers were very reliant on his playmaking and shot creation. I doubt they'd clear the West, let alone win 4 series in a row.

Kobe was not worth 20 points even situationally. Yes they would be worse. Yes their offense and potentially defense would slide. But that they slide by so much a historically big blowout becomes a loss is not something that follows from any of these points. Small samples increase uncertainity and to an extent better players become more valuable vs tougher opponents. If kobe is out they slant more defensively. Flawed rosters can still win titles. Just ask the 2021 Bucks.

Kobe doesn't need to be worth 20 points for Lakers to lose the first two games against the Spurs. Even if we assume two blowouts in games 3 and 4, now we would have had 2-2 series and the Spurs had HCA.

That is assuming they win game 1. Hell if we're being honest about this, there's a probability the close game doesn't swing. Over small samples wonky **** like teams upping the mov or making comebacks can happen when stars leave(kd, 2019, giannis 2021, wilt 1969, ect ect ect). Uncertainty does not mean things are likely to move the way you want them to both in terms of direction and extent.
Also, comparing 2001 Lakers without Kobe to 2021 Bucks is funny, considering that the Bucks had like 4 out of 5 best players in this

Uh...no. But whatever because the Suns would have "had 4 of the best five players" for the 2001 Spurs so
7 games series is way more dynamic than just looking at average point differential.

And that dynamism can swing against or for the Lakers. That is why you cannot just say "small sample" -> "mov doesn't mean as much" -> "spurs win". That's not how it works.
lessthanjake
Analyst
Posts: 3,082
And1: 2,826
Joined: Apr 13, 2013

Re: 00 & 01 Lakers with 1999 Kobe 

Post#24 » by lessthanjake » Wed Jul 19, 2023 6:40 pm

Yes in 2001. No one was even close to them that year, and 1999 Kobe was still a good player.

It brings up a lot of variables though. Would the 2001 Lakers have been as good if they’d not won before and therefore didn’t have as much confidence in themselves? Maybe not. But, leaving aside contingent variables like that, I don’t really see that 2001 Kobe —> 1999 Kobe is enough of a downgrade to make the Lakers lose when they just stomped everyone.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,839
And1: 25,175
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: 00 & 01 Lakers with 1999 Kobe 

Post#25 » by 70sFan » Wed Jul 19, 2023 7:16 pm

OhayoKD wrote:
70sFan wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:Kobe was not worth 20 points even situationally. Yes they would be worse. Yes their offense and potentially defense would slide. But that they slide by so much a historically big blowout becomes a loss is not something that follows from any of these points. Small samples increase uncertainity and to an extent better players become more valuable vs tougher opponents. If kobe is out they slant more defensively. Flawed rosters can still win titles. Just ask the 2021 Bucks.

Kobe doesn't need to be worth 20 points for Lakers to lose the first two games against the Spurs. Even if we assume two blowouts in games 3 and 4, now we would have had 2-2 series and the Spurs had HCA.

That is assuming they win game 1. Hell if we're being honest about this, there's a probability the close game doesn't swing. Over small samples wonky **** like teams upping the mov or making comebacks can happen when stars leave(kd, 2019, giannis 2021, wilt 1969, ect ect ect). Uncertainty does not mean things are likely to move the way you want them to both in terms of direction and extent.
Also, comparing 2001 Lakers without Kobe to 2021 Bucks is funny, considering that the Bucks had like 4 out of 5 best players in this

Uh...no. But whatever because the Suns would have "had 4 of the best five players" for the 2001 Spurs so
7 games series is way more dynamic than just looking at average point differential.

And that dynamism can swing against or for the Lakers. That is why you cannot just say "small sample" -> "mov doesn't mean as much" -> "spurs win". That's not how it works.

Well, my statement is not that the Lakers would have lost for sure, only that I think it's not likely for they would have won 4 series straight without their second best player. Not impossible, but I wouldn't bet on it.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,932
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: 00 & 01 Lakers with 1999 Kobe 

Post#26 » by OhayoKD » Wed Jul 19, 2023 7:17 pm

70sFan wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
70sFan wrote:Kobe doesn't need to be worth 20 points for Lakers to lose the first two games against the Spurs. Even if we assume two blowouts in games 3 and 4, now we would have had 2-2 series and the Spurs had HCA.

That is assuming they win game 1. Hell if we're being honest about this, there's a probability the close game doesn't swing. Over small samples wonky **** like teams upping the mov or making comebacks can happen when stars leave(kd, 2019, giannis 2021, wilt 1969, ect ect ect). Uncertainty does not mean things are likely to move the way you want them to both in terms of direction and extent.
Also, comparing 2001 Lakers without Kobe to 2021 Bucks is funny, considering that the Bucks had like 4 out of 5 best players in this

Uh...no. But whatever because the Suns would have "had 4 of the best five players" for the 2001 Spurs so
7 games series is way more dynamic than just looking at average point differential.

And that dynamism can swing against or for the Lakers. That is why you cannot just say "small sample" -> "mov doesn't mean as much" -> "spurs win". That's not how it works.

Well, my statement is not that the Lakers would have lost for sure, only that I think it's not likely for they would have won 4 series straight without their second best player. Not impossible, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I mean your original claim was that they would have lost to the Spurs, but whatever.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,839
And1: 25,175
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: 00 & 01 Lakers with 1999 Kobe 

Post#27 » by 70sFan » Wed Jul 19, 2023 7:46 pm

OhayoKD wrote:
70sFan wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:That is assuming they win game 1. Hell if we're being honest about this, there's a probability the close game doesn't swing. Over small samples wonky **** like teams upping the mov or making comebacks can happen when stars leave(kd, 2019, giannis 2021, wilt 1969, ect ect ect). Uncertainty does not mean things are likely to move the way you want them to both in terms of direction and extent.

Uh...no. But whatever because the Suns would have "had 4 of the best five players" for the 2001 Spurs so

And that dynamism can swing against or for the Lakers. That is why you cannot just say "small sample" -> "mov doesn't mean as much" -> "spurs win". That's not how it works.

Well, my statement is not that the Lakers would have lost for sure, only that I think it's not likely for they would have won 4 series straight without their second best player. Not impossible, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I mean your original claim was that they would have lost to the Spurs, but whatever.

Yes, that's the most likely scenario in my opinion.

Return to Player Comparisons