00 & 01 Lakers with 1999 Kobe

[SHAQ32]

Are the 2000 and 2001 Lakers still good enough to win? Assume 1999 Kobe for both seasons.

[Matt15]

They lose both years, Shaq can’t do it alone.

[iggymcfrack]

They lose both years, Shaq can’t do it alone.

LOL, come on. Forget '99 Kobe. Just pretend Kobe gets injured and replaced by no one and the Lakers still cruise to the title in 2001. Who beats them? Do you think Iverson, Mutombo, McKie, and Snow are better than Shaq, Horry, Fisher, and Grant?

[onedayattatime]

LOL, come on. Forget '99 Kobe. Just pretend Kobe gets injured and replaced by no one and the Lakers still cruise to the title in 2001. Who beats them? Do you think Iverson, Mutombo, McKie, and Snow are better than Shaq, Horry, Fisher, and Grant?

Isn't the most relevant team the Spurs? In 1999, the Spurs swept the Lakers, and their 2001 roster was actually better.

[iggymcfrack]

LOL, come on. Forget '99 Kobe. Just pretend Kobe gets injured and replaced by no one and the Lakers still cruise to the title in 2001. Who beats them? Do you think Iverson, Mutombo, McKie, and Snow are better than Shaq, Horry, Fisher, and Grant?

Isn't the most relevant team the Spurs? In 1999, the Spurs swept the Lakers, and their 2001 roster was actually better.

The Spurs got swept losing by 14, 7, 39, and 29. Acting like losing the second banana would cost the Lakers that series is crazy. It has to be way up there for most lopsided series in NBA history. Even if Kobe missed every single shot he took, field goal and free throw, on heavy volume, it still would have been 2-2.

[70sFan]

LOL, come on. Forget '99 Kobe. Just pretend Kobe gets injured and replaced by no one and the Lakers still cruise to the title in 2001. Who beats them? Do you think Iverson, Mutombo, McKie, and Snow are better than Shaq, Horry, Fisher, and Grant?

Isn't the most relevant team the Spurs? In 1999, the Spurs swept the Lakers, and their 2001 roster was actually better.

The Spurs got swept losing by 14, 7, 39, and 29. Acting like losing the second banana would cost the Lakers that series is crazy. It has to be way up there for most lopsided series in NBA history. Even if Kobe missed every single shot he took, field goal and free throw, on heavy volume, it still would have been 2-2.

I am pretty sure the Lakers would have lost the 2001 WCF without their best performer in that series.

[tsherkin]

Yeah I think LA loses in 2001 to the Spurs, and in 2000 to Portland.

[canada_dry]

The difference between 99 Kobe and 2000 kobe wasnt much...he took his big jump in 01.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[iggymcfrack]

Isn't the most relevant team the Spurs? In 1999, the Spurs swept the Lakers, and their 2001 roster was actually better.

The Spurs got swept losing by 14, 7, 39, and 29. Acting like losing the second banana would cost the Lakers that series is crazy. It has to be way up there for most lopsided series in NBA history. Even if Kobe missed every single shot he took, field goal and free throw, on heavy volume, it still would have been 2-2.

I am pretty sure the Lakers would have lost the 2001 WCF without their best performer in that series.

If everything else went the same, but instead of going 54/105 from the field and 20/26 from the line, Kobe went 0/105 from the field and 0/26 from the line, the series would have been tied 2-2 going back to San Antonio. The Lakers were +16 in the 11 minutes he was on the bench. I don't see how you can say that Kobe just missing the games would cause them to lose the series.

Like peak Steph was maybe worth 6 points on the betting line if he was out injured during the playoffs. The Lakers were winning by an average of 22.3 points per game. No one player is ever going to make that much difference other than maaaaaaybe 2009 LeBron.

[OhayoKD]

The Spurs got swept losing by 14, 7, 39, and 29. Acting like losing the second banana would cost the Lakers that series is crazy. It has to be way up there for most lopsided series in NBA history. Even if Kobe missed every single shot he took, field goal and free throw, on heavy volume, it still would have been 2-2.

I am pretty sure the Lakers would have lost the 2001 WCF without their best performer in that series.

If everything else went the same, but instead of going 54/105 from the field and 20/26 from the line, Kobe went 0/105 from the field and 0/26 from the line, the series would have been tied 2-2 going back to San Antonio. The Lakers were +16 in the 11 minutes he was on the bench. I don't see how you can say that Kobe just missing the games would cause them to lose the series.

Like peak Steph was maybe worth 6 points on the betting line if he was out injured during the playoffs. The Lakers were winning by an average of 22.3 points per game. No one player is ever going to make that much difference other than maaaaaaybe 2009 LeBron.

22-points a game is a pretty big margin for a single player to account for yeah. And no I don't think 2009 Lebron is winning that either.

[Matt15]

LOL, come on. Forget '99 Kobe. Just pretend Kobe gets injured and replaced by no one and the Lakers still cruise to the title in 2001. Who beats them? Do you think Iverson, Mutombo, McKie, and Snow are better than Shaq, Horry, Fisher, and Grant?

Isn't the most relevant team the Spurs? In 1999, the Spurs swept the Lakers, and their 2001 roster was actually better.

The Spurs got swept losing by 14, 7, 39, and 29. Acting like losing the second banana would cost the Lakers that series is crazy. It has to be way up there for most lopsided series in NBA history. Even if Kobe missed every single shot he took, field goal and free throw, on heavy volume, it still would have been 2-2.

Kobe wasn’t the second banana in that series and the main reason why the Spurs got swept in such fashion was because he was playing at such a high level.

[OhayoKD]

Isn't the most relevant team the Spurs? In 1999, the Spurs swept the Lakers, and their 2001 roster was actually better.

The Spurs got swept losing by 14, 7, 39, and 29. Acting like losing the second banana would cost the Lakers that series is crazy. It has to be way up there for most lopsided series in NBA history. Even if Kobe missed every single shot he took, field goal and free throw, on heavy volume, it still would have been 2-2.

Kobe wasn’t the second banana in that series and the main reason why the Spurs got swept in such fashion was because he was playing at such a high level.

1st bananas also do not swing 22-point series typically

[SHAQ32]

They lose both years, Shaq can’t do it alone.

Glen Rice couldn't move into 2nd option, on the 2000 Lakers?

[Matt15]

They lose both years, Shaq can’t do it alone.

Glen Rice couldn't move into 2nd option, on the 2000 Lakers?

Well technically he could I just don’t think he’d be a good enough 2nd option for them to win that year.

[70sFan]

The Spurs got swept losing by 14, 7, 39, and 29. Acting like losing the second banana would cost the Lakers that series is crazy. It has to be way up there for most lopsided series in NBA history. Even if Kobe missed every single shot he took, field goal and free throw, on heavy volume, it still would have been 2-2.

I am pretty sure the Lakers would have lost the 2001 WCF without their best performer in that series.

If everything else went the same, but instead of going 54/105 from the field and 20/26 from the line, Kobe went 0/105 from the field and 0/26 from the line, the series would have been tied 2-2 going back to San Antonio. The Lakers were +16 in the 11 minutes he was on the bench. I don't see how you can say that Kobe just missing the games would cause them to lose the series.

Like peak Steph was maybe worth 6 points on the betting line if he was out injured during the playoffs. The Lakers were winning by an average of 22.3 points per game. No one player is ever going to make that much difference other than maaaaaaybe 2009 LeBron.

Basketball doesn't work that way in such small samples.

[ceoofkobefans]

They lose both years, Shaq can’t do it alone.

LOL, come on. Forget '99 Kobe. Just pretend Kobe gets injured and replaced by no one and the Lakers still cruise to the title in 2001. Who beats them? Do you think Iverson, Mutombo, McKie, and Snow are better than Shaq, Horry, Fisher, and Grant?

Lakers don’t even make the finals in 2001 without Kobe lmao what are you talking about (and no the 01 76ers are likely beating the 01 lakers without Kobe in a series)

2000 again lakers don’t make the finals if Kobe isn’t on the team but since he was injured in the finals and they still won I’d say they prolly still beat the pacers in 00 without Kobe all together

Adding in 99 Kobe is a different story. I’d say 00 they prolly lose in the west (prolly to the trailblazers in the WCF) and 01 they still win the finals

[MyUniBroDavis]

They lose both years, Shaq can’t do it alone.

LOL, come on. Forget '99 Kobe. Just pretend Kobe gets injured and replaced by no one and the Lakers still cruise to the title in 2001. Who beats them? Do you think Iverson, Mutombo, McKie, and Snow are better than Shaq, Horry, Fisher, and Grant?

Lakers don’t even make the finals in 2001 without Kobe lmao what are you talking about (and no the 01 76ers are likely beating the 01 lakers without Kobe in a series)

2000 again lakers don’t make the finals if Kobe isn’t on the team but since he was injured in the finals and they still won I’d say they prolly still beat the pacers in 00 without Kobe all together

Adding in 99 Kobe is a different story. I’d say 00 they prolly lose in the west (prolly to the trailblazers in the WCF) and 01 they still win the finals

It would be 2-2 in 2000, although maybe they don’t get blown out in game 5 if they are tied 2-2 instead of up 3-1

[OhayoKD]

I am pretty sure the Lakers would have lost the 2001 WCF without their best performer in that series.

If everything else went the same, but instead of going 54/105 from the field and 20/26 from the line, Kobe went 0/105 from the field and 0/26 from the line, the series would have been tied 2-2 going back to San Antonio. The Lakers were +16 in the 11 minutes he was on the bench. I don't see how you can say that Kobe just missing the games would cause them to lose the series.

Like peak Steph was maybe worth 6 points on the betting line if he was out injured during the playoffs. The Lakers were winning by an average of 22.3 points per game. No one player is ever going to make that much difference other than maaaaaaybe 2009 LeBron.

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?

They lose both years, Shaq can’t do it alone.

LOL, come on. Forget '99 Kobe. Just pretend Kobe gets injured and replaced by no one and the Lakers still cruise to the title in 2001. Who beats them? Do you think Iverson, Mutombo, McKie, and Snow are better than Shaq, Horry, Fisher, and Grant?

Lakers don’t even make the finals in 2001 without Kobe lmao what are you talking about (and no the 01 76ers are likely beating the 01 lakers without Kobe in a series)

2000 again lakers don’t make the finals if Kobe isn’t on the team but since he was injured in the finals and they still won I’d say they prolly still beat the pacers in 00 without Kobe all together

Adding in 99 Kobe is a different story. I’d say 00 they prolly lose in the west (prolly to the trailblazers in the WCF) and 01 they still win the finals

Again. What is your basis lol.

[eminence]

Tricky, clear downgrades.

'00 Lakers likely still get the #1 seed, but decent chance the '01 Lakers slide considerably in the standings, the top of the West was packed that year. Going from 2nd to 7th is not out of the question.

In the playoffs, it'll be tougher in 2000 but still possible, obviously worse than they were and I think I'd favor Portland. In '01 I don't see Phil/Shaq taking low seed LA with baby Kobe and getting them into that same playoff groove they hit in '01, especially if they don't have that extra moxie coming off a title in '00. I don't think they get it done.

[70sFan]

If everything else went the same, but instead of going 54/105 from the field and 20/26 from the line, Kobe went 0/105 from the field and 0/26 from the line, the series would have been tied 2-2 going back to San Antonio. The Lakers were +16 in the 11 minutes he was on the bench. I don't see how you can say that Kobe just missing the games would cause them to lose the series.

Like peak Steph was maybe worth 6 points on the betting line if he was out injured during the playoffs. The Lakers were winning by an average of 22.3 points per game. No one player is ever going to make that much difference other than maaaaaaybe 2009 LeBron.

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.