1999-2004 Kings: Replace Divac w/ '18-'23 Jokic

[Matt15]

How many titles would the Kings win from 1999-2004 if you replace Divac w/Jokic?

1999 Kings-2018 Jokic
2000 Kings-2019 Jokic
2001 Kings-2020 Jokic
2002 Kings-2021 Jokic
2003 Kings-2022 Jokic
2004 Kings-2023 Jokic

[lessthanjake]

That’s an easy 3+ titles IMO. I know there were some other really good teams in that era, but that team was close already, and so if you replace Divac (a legitimately good player but not a star or anything) with an all-time peak guy that would IMO fit with the team very well stylistically, I think they’d be one of the best teams ever. Maybe the 2001 Lakers would be too much, and maybe Jokic wasn’t good enough yet in 2018, and there’s always a luck element, but 3-4 titles seems like the best guess (assuming no massive injury issues).

[AdagioPace]

3+ consecutive is highly improbable in modern era. 3 or 4 consecutive super deep Playoff runs without an unfortunate episode are not realistic.

My choice is 2. They win in 2000 and 2003 (two well spaced titles)

[Franco]

3+ consecutive is highly improbable in modern era. 3 or 4 consecutive super deep Playoff runs without an unfortunate episode are not realistic.

My choice is 2. They win in 2000 and 2003 (two well spaced titles)

Even ignoring the shenanigans of the 2002 series, the Kings were a few bounces away from winning that series as it was. I don't see how they don't win it in this scenario.

[iggymcfrack]

Probably win in 2000, almost definitely win in 2002, and would be heavy favorites in ‘03 and ‘04. Gotta go with 3+.

[Doctor MJ]

How many titles would the Kings win from 1999-2004 if you replace Divac w/Jokic?

Key question: What is Webber doing?

If the answer is "Adjusting to a more reasonable role given his limited abilities", that's cool and the team should dominate...but he didn't do that when he actually played for the Kings.

[dygaction]

How many titles would the Kings win from 1999-2004 if you replace Divac w/Jokic?

Key question: What is Webber doing?

If the answer is "Adjusting to a more reasonable role given his limited abilities", that's cool and the team should dominate...but he didn't do that when he actually played for the Kings.

That's an unfair question. It's like asking "What would KG be doing if playing along Jokic, would he still command the ball and try to make 5 assists per game?" He even adjusted by giving the ball to Rondo and Pierce to initiate better offense.
Since Jokic is a lot better than Webber and layers above Divac, I am sure Webber would concede.

[Doctor MJ]

How many titles would the Kings win from 1999-2004 if you replace Divac w/Jokic?

Key question: What is Webber doing?

If the answer is "Adjusting to a more reasonable role given his limited abilities", that's cool and the team should dominate...but he didn't do that when he actually played for the Kings.

That's an unfair question. It's like asking "What would KG be doing if playing along Jokic, would he still command the ball and try to make 5 assists per game?" He even adjusted by giving the ball to Rondo and Pierce to initiate better offense.
Since Jokic is a lot better than Webber and layers above Divac, I am sure Webber would concede.

Ah, well my riposte will show you what an extremist I am.

1. Were KG in his prime, I think it would have been the wrong move to let any of the other Celtics have a higher primacy than him.

2. As it was, it was the right move only because he was old and needed to conserve his energy for defense.

3. Regardless, I don't believe KG accepted lower primacy because he thought he was playing with better offensive players than himself, but because that's what would let other guys do their thing.

4. And Webber's tendency to shoot more than he should got in the way of other guys doing their thing...

5. Which is related to why Brad Miller was a more valuable basketball player in Sacramento, and why Vlade Divac was more valuable per minute years after his physical prime.

[tsherkin]

1. Were KG in his prime, I think it would have been the wrong move to let any of the other Celtics have a higher primacy than him.

Cheekier rejoinder: KG's AST100 was the same in his first season in Boston as his last season in Minny. His AST% was highest 03-05, but normally was around 20% give or take, which is right around his 08 Boston season.

His shooting rate was quite similar as well. What actually happened was that he played a little less than 33 mpg for Boston instead of the 40 mpg he played for the Wolves.

4. And Webber's tendency to shoot more than he should got in the way of other guys doing their thing...

Yes. Webber liked to score, but he wasn't good at it.

[Peregrine01]

Imagine if Jokic replaced Webber instead. That Kings team would have the best rORTG ever.

[giberish]

How many titles would the Kings win from 1999-2004 if you replace Divac w/Jokic?

Key question: What is Webber doing?

If the answer is "Adjusting to a more reasonable role given his limited abilities", that's cool and the team should dominate...but he didn't do that when he actually played for the Kings.

That's an unfair question. It's like asking "What would KG be doing if playing along Jokic, would he still command the ball and try to make 5 assists per game?" He even adjusted by giving the ball to Rondo and Pierce to initiate better offense.
Since Jokic is a lot better than Webber and layers above Divac, I am sure Webber would concede.

Really, Webber was a pretty clear first option until his injury. Obviously Jokic in place of Divac changes things but I don't think it would have been much of an issue (at least if they were winning enough).

Post injury Webber did shoot way too much as he was no longer efficient. At that point even just having him on the court a lot as he had also heavily declined on defense so if you had enough other offense-creation not to need him you were better off without.

Back to the OP. the 1999 Kings are probably too young (including Jokic). The 2000 and 2001 Kings are debatable. The 2000 Kings were still a little young, and the 2001 Lakers were so OP in their playoff run that even a title-quality team probably loses to them. 2002 and the Kings break through easily. The 2003 Kings would have been clear favorites until Webber went down. They still might have won without him though. The 2004 Kings have the problem of incorporating post-injury Webber back into their team. If they limit his role they could have won though.

[Asianiac_24]

3+, that’s a huge upgrade. It would be like replacing Penny Hardaway with MJ