Why I think the Kobe-Pau Lakers would be just as good today

[ShootersShoot]

Bynum, odom, pau would be an elite frontcourt in any era. Odom and pau especially would be completely fine in today.

Pau + Odom were the best lineups back then, IIRC.

Yea odom and pau were finishing games. Bynum was pretty solid too, overall. He was more of a traditional center which would serve well in some matchups today and his skillset was a good contrast to odom/pau.

[ConSarnit]

A Kobe/Pau combo would be elite with the right coaching strategy around them because you have two excellent players. Having the exact same roster playing the exact same was on offense won't provide a good enough offense for them to win in the current NBA. They would need to make some adjustments.

From the OP, even though I know it is old, I have no clue what the gather step has to do with making a triangle offense more potent, that is such a random mention. What's connection there? lol

I don't know if you've been watching basketball over the last 20 years, but they started allowing essentially three steps sometime in the 2010s. Makes dribble penetration far easier. Every form of offense is more potent today because of rule changes and shifts in referee interpretations of old rules. 2008-2010 LA could play the exact same way, and its ORtg would be higher today in 2024-25.

They’d be worse relative to the rest of the league. Those Lakers teams were taking 25 midrange attempts and making 43% of them. That’s 10 more than the next highest team. They’d get mathed to death. And if you’re going to say the 2019 Spurs got by with midrange they still didn’t have the disparity in midrange attempts that the Lakers would and those Spurs teams shot crazy good from 3 (45% from the corners and 38% ATB) even if it were reduced volume.

Those Lakers team would be dead last in 3pa by 7 fga this season and would be +10 in midrange attempts over the next highest team. The Lakers would be the 4th worst 3pt shooting team in the league (with by far the lowest volume).

There is no way the Lakers could play the same style they played back then. They averaged 101 PPG. That’s the worst offense in the league by a lot.

[Hornet Mania]

It's possible Kobe had part of his t esticles surgically implanted into Pau's scrotum and the rest is history.

Somewhere a Kobe superfan started furiously scribbling the outline to the ultimate slash fiction.

[FrodoBaggins]

A Kobe/Pau combo would be elite with the right coaching strategy around them because you have two excellent players. Having the exact same roster playing the exact same was on offense won't provide a good enough offense for them to win in the current NBA. They would need to make some adjustments.

From the OP, even though I know it is old, I have no clue what the gather step has to do with making a triangle offense more potent, that is such a random mention. What's connection there? lol

I don't know if you've been watching basketball over the last 20 years, but they started allowing essentially three steps sometime in the 2010s. Makes dribble penetration far easier. Every form of offense is more potent today because of rule changes and shifts in referee interpretations of old rules. 2008-2010 LA could play the exact same way, and its ORtg would be higher today in 2024-25.

They’d be worse relative to the rest of the league. Those Lakers teams were taking 25 midrange attempts and making 43% of them. That’s 10 more than the next highest team. They’d get mathed to death. And if you’re going to say the 2019 Spurs got by with midrange they still didn’t have the disparity in midrange attempts that the Lakers would and those Spurs teams shot crazy good from 3 (45% from the corners and 38% ATB) even if it were reduced volume.

Those Lakers team would be dead last in 3pa by 7 fga this season and would be +10 in midrange attempts over the next highest team. The Lakers would be the 4th worst 3pt shooting team in the league (with by far the lowest volume).

There is no way the Lakers could play the same style they played back then. They averaged 101 PPG. That’s the worst offense in the league by a lot.

I was talking about absolute terms. Unless you think the increase in LA-ORtg is only due to the change in shot selection and general offensive strategy. I believe rule changes and modifications to their interpretations have had an outsized influence. To what degree, it's hard to say. But we can point to certain years where officiating changes have come into effect and LA-ORtg had a notable change. 2003-04 to 2004-05/2005-06 with the hand-checking reinforcement + greater emphasis on blocking fouls and defensive three seconds. Or when the freedom of movement and the shortened shot clock on ORB possessions were introduced.

Relatively? Sure. But it would be a minor adjustment. A few more threes instead of long twos for the roleplayers, largely. Stuff like that. There's no hard-boiled set amount of threes a team necessarily needs to take; as per the OP we've seen modern teams succeed offensively with lower 3pt attempt rates and a mid-range & post-up focus. The bare bones of the triple post offense would work with minor tweaks and the right personnel.

[dhsilv2]

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.

Imo, the 08 Lakers have a better chance to adapt with Radmanovic, Ariza, Sasha, Fisher, Farmar hitting 3’s, with a realistic assumption that Kobe would adjust his playing style and limit his long 2’s and polish his 3 pt stroke.

I don't see the need for Kobe to shoot 3's, but I also don't think he'd adapt. He might take more but he's not going to magically become a better shooter out there.

The biggest issue beyond players is the coach. Getting Phil to adapt is hard. But while the team had shooters. Their best lineup was with Odom and Gasol. You'd today not want to run those 2 with Kobe as much...not that they'd suddenly suck. But I assume the OP's context is they'd be able to have a shot at back to back titles. And on that ground, I don't see it. Still a playoff team and still a good one at that. But back to back is a lot harder to see.

[MoreyWins]

Slightly unrelated, but Alperen Sengun and Pau Gasol both have similar shot profiles and are equally effective at playmaking. The main difference is that Sengun doesn't get as many of his shots assisted by his teammates. A triangle offense would do wonders for Houston's half court sets.

[QMemphis]

Ant is better than Kobe.

Ants not better than Kobe but that gap isn’t huge.

Yes it is lol

You gotta list actual facts bro not just your opinion lol. What team and individual accomplishments support your argument?

[ReggiesKnicks]

Slightly unrelated, but Alphren Sengun and Pau Gasol both have similar shot profiles and are equally effective at playmaking. The main difference is that Sengun doesn't get as many of his shots assisted by his teammates. A triangle offense would do wonders for Houston's half court sets.

A true Triangle offense is far less sophisticated than the modern NBA offenses.

Modern-day offenses incorporate principles from the Triangle offense and some sets incorporate partial sets from the Triangle.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

The tricky part here is the fact that it was obvious when Kobe played that he should be shooting more 3's and less long 2's, but he was too stubborn to change how he played.

My gut is that Kobe would simply be a much better player on an absolute scale today because he'd learn the right strategies when he was young and still listened to other people.

[QMemphis]

Ant is better than Kobe.
Gobert is better than Pau in today's NBA.
Towns is better than Odom.
Jaden is better than Ariza.
Conley is better than Fisher.
Naz is better than Bynum in today's league, especially based on availability.

Ants not better than Kobe but that gap isn’t huge.
Towns and Pau are equally taken but Towns spacing helps complement Ant more than Pau’s defense and passing.
Odom and Naz are equally talented just different players

Rudy is about even to Bynum
Jaden and Conley are better.

But that Xfactor is NAW he is the best POA on the Wolves and Lakers 9th guy can’t do anything with him.

Towns isn't a Timberwolf anymore.

Well obviously lol, I thought we were comparing Kobe’s Lakers to last year’s Timberwolves that were a dominant team.

[ConSarnit]

I don't know if you've been watching basketball over the last 20 years, but they started allowing essentially three steps sometime in the 2010s. Makes dribble penetration far easier. Every form of offense is more potent today because of rule changes and shifts in referee interpretations of old rules. 2008-2010 LA could play the exact same way, and its ORtg would be higher today in 2024-25.

They’d be worse relative to the rest of the league. Those Lakers teams were taking 25 midrange attempts and making 43% of them. That’s 10 more than the next highest team. They’d get mathed to death. And if you’re going to say the 2019 Spurs got by with midrange they still didn’t have the disparity in midrange attempts that the Lakers would and those Spurs teams shot crazy good from 3 (45% from the corners and 38% ATB) even if it were reduced volume.

Those Lakers team would be dead last in 3pa by 7 fga this season and would be +10 in midrange attempts over the next highest team. The Lakers would be the 4th worst 3pt shooting team in the league (with by far the lowest volume).

There is no way the Lakers could play the same style they played back then. They averaged 101 PPG. That’s the worst offense in the league by a lot.

I was talking about absolute terms. Unless you think the increase in LA-ORtg is only due to the change in shot selection and general offensive strategy. I believe rule changes and modifications to their interpretations have had an outsized influence. To what degree, it's hard to say. But we can point to certain years where officiating changes have come into effect and LA-ORtg had a notable change. 2003-04 to 2004-05/2005-06 with the hand-checking reinforcement + greater emphasis on blocking fouls and defensive three seconds. Or when the freedom of movement and the shortened shot clock on ORB possessions were introduced.

Relatively? Sure. But it would be a minor adjustment. A few more threes instead of long twos for the roleplayers, largely. Stuff like that. There's no hard-boiled set amount of threes a team necessarily needs to take; as per the OP we've seen modern teams succeed offensively with lower 3pt attempt rates and a mid-range & post-up focus. The bare bones of the triple post offense would work with minor tweaks and the right personnel.

But you’re talking about scaling things up that aren’t even possible. More 3’s? The only regular rotation player who shot above league average from 3 in the 09/10 season was their 8th man (Farmar). None of their bigs could shoot from 3 at all and their guards/wings would be the worst 3pt shooting group in their league for their position. Who are you shifting those 3pt attempts to? That Spurs team was the best 3pt shooting team in the league even if it was on lower volume. The Lakers were far less efficient from 3 and there is no indication they could scale up considering their roster.

The Lakers could definitely tweak things but their overall offense would not improve a whole lot considering they’d still be a middling, high volume mid-range shooting team (42-43%) and they would be a bad, low volume 3pt shooting team. Those Lakers teams were also low volume transition scoring teams so you’re not making up points there. None of that is a recipe for offensive success. I think they could do well defensively given their roster but they’d have real issues on the offensive end.

[FrodoBaggins]

They’d be worse relative to the rest of the league. Those Lakers teams were taking 25 midrange attempts and making 43% of them. That’s 10 more than the next highest team. They’d get mathed to death. And if you’re going to say the 2019 Spurs got by with midrange they still didn’t have the disparity in midrange attempts that the Lakers would and those Spurs teams shot crazy good from 3 (45% from the corners and 38% ATB) even if it were reduced volume.

Those Lakers team would be dead last in 3pa by 7 fga this season and would be +10 in midrange attempts over the next highest team. The Lakers would be the 4th worst 3pt shooting team in the league (with by far the lowest volume).

There is no way the Lakers could play the same style they played back then. They averaged 101 PPG. That’s the worst offense in the league by a lot.

I was talking about absolute terms. Unless you think the increase in LA-ORtg is only due to the change in shot selection and general offensive strategy. I believe rule changes and modifications to their interpretations have had an outsized influence. To what degree, it's hard to say. But we can point to certain years where officiating changes have come into effect and LA-ORtg had a notable change. 2003-04 to 2004-05/2005-06 with the hand-checking reinforcement + greater emphasis on blocking fouls and defensive three seconds. Or when the freedom of movement and the shortened shot clock on ORB possessions were introduced.

Relatively? Sure. But it would be a minor adjustment. A few more threes instead of long twos for the roleplayers, largely. Stuff like that. There's no hard-boiled set amount of threes a team necessarily needs to take; as per the OP we've seen modern teams succeed offensively with lower 3pt attempt rates and a mid-range & post-up focus. The bare bones of the triple post offense would work with minor tweaks and the right personnel.

But you’re talking about scaling things up that aren’t even possible. More 3’s? The only regular rotation player who shot above league average from 3 in the 09/10 season was their 8th man (Farmar). None of their bigs could shoot from 3 at all and their guards/wings would be the worst 3pt shooting group in their league for their position. Who are you shifting those 3pt attempts to? That Spurs team was the best 3pt shooting team in the league even if it was on lower volume. The Lakers were far less efficient from 3 and there is no indication they could scale up considering their roster.

The Lakers could definitely tweak things but their overall offense would not improve a whole lot considering they’d still be a middling, high volume mid-range shooting team (42-43%) and they would be a bad, low volume 3pt shooting team. Those Lakers teams were also low volume transition scoring teams so you’re not making up points there. None of that is a recipe for offensive success. I think they could do well defensively given their roster but they’d have real issues on the offensive end.

I just don't think it's an apples-to-apples comparison the way you're trying to make it. Re: comparing numbers across eras.

[Primedeion]

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.

The tricky part here is the fact that it was obvious when Kobe played that he should be shooting more 3's and less long 2's, but he was too stubborn to change how he played.

Yeah, imagine if 09 Kobe wasn't so stubborn. I bet he could have incredible offensive impact while anchoring the #1 offense in the league. And been far and away the best player on a 66 win team that won the chip and grades out as one of the best ever by the advanced team metrics.

...

Oh. Wait. That's exactly what he did.

[Bloodbather]

They'd be Anthony Edwards-Alperen Şengün on steroids. That's definitely a contender at the very least.

[PRguy23]

I'm not quite Kobe fan at all, but this t3am would contend for a title. I see people.keep.leaving off the list who was a good player amd was locking people up on defense. Bynum amd Gasol front court is huge. At rides they were running with Odom at the point. The size advantage would make it difficult for many teams. Bynum was scoring fine I. That Era that would.go ip now against weaker smaller Cs and Gasol would abuse some of the 4s today. Kobe would keep shooting his shot. After a championship or 2 this team, like many other past teams would change how basketball is played in a copy cat league. The 3 point line wouldn't make a difference to that team. Nor the shaq lakers, the Bulls. Duncans spurs etc...

[ballzboyee]

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.

Gasol played in just 27 games for the Lakers in 2008 and the Lakers still won 57 games while making the finals. Bynum played in 35 rs games and didn't play a minute in the playoffs. Lakers finished first in the conference. Kobe basically carried the team and bailed them out game after game with 4th quarter heroics. I think he made 7 or 8 game winning shots that season, which means if he misses Lakers might even not make playoffs that year cause the Nuggets won 50 games as an eight seed. Those western conference 50+ win gauntlets were brutal. Kobe basically carried the Lakers in the playoffs too as he led the league in scoring. I just use 2008 as an example, but you see how threads like this are trying to implant this revisionist history that Gasol and Bynum were twin towers all-nba bigs. Bynum was serviceable when he on the floor and wasn't fouling out every game and Gasol was a very good borderline all-star level big. That's like a baseline requirement to a playoff team back then. New Orleans finished 2nd in the West and had prime Tyson Chandler and David West. Spurs still had Duncan and two HOF guards. Suns had prime Amar'e Stoudemire, Shaq, and Shawn Marion, etc. Suns bigs were better and more versatile. Put Kobe with Marion and Amar'e they bounce the Celtics easily in 2008.

To answer the OP's question, even Popovich said about the pace and space era that the only thing he looked at at the end of a night was 3's made, but he used to pay attention to other markers. That tells you the game has been simplified and that it is not more complicated than Duncan-Shaq-Kobe era of the 2000's. Just surround Gasol and Kobe with 3 & D guys, and you got yourself a championship team. It's not that complicated. I think Gasol would easily transition to a stretch 5, and Kobe could easily up his 3p percentage to league average. Nothing complicated about it. Kobe is an all-time great player, and if you give a good support casting he will compete for a title.

[Shootit]

I honestly didn't think this was a conversation?

A great shooter and a dominate mobile big struggling these days??

[Iwasawitness]

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.

The tricky part here is the fact that it was obvious when Kobe played that he should be shooting more 3's and less long 2's, but he was too stubborn to change how he played.

Yeah, imagine if 09 Kobe wasn't so stubborn. I bet he could have incredible offensive impact while anchoring the #1 offense in the league. And been far and away the best player on a 66 win team that won the chip and grades out as one of the best ever by the advanced team metrics.

...

Oh. Wait. That's exactly what he did.

If you're going to bump an old thread, at least get your facts straight first.

[bonita_the_frog]

They wouldn't even make the West playoffs today.

Who'd have done better in 1st Round vs. 2025 Minnesota, the Kobe-Pau Lakers or the Doncic-LeBron Lakers?

[tsherkin]

This is an interesting one to ponder.

I'd probably write off the 2010 Lakers. Artest was worse for them than Ariza, specifically for shooting reasons. And they struggled pretty badly against things which looked like contemporary defense, especially from the aging Celtics. They'd have a hell of a time with the Thunder, for example, but would likely also struggle against the T-Wolves. They had some decent defenses in that postseason, and then Phoenix, which was dreadful on D but good enough on O to go 6 with LA.

Kobe had a pretty ugly series against the Thunder, or rather an ugly start. He shot under 35% from the floor in the first and third game. Killed it at the line in Game 2. Didn't shoot super well from the floor, but 43% or so inside the arc. He nearly dropped a 40-piece on them because of the FTs, though. Then he had 12, then 13 points in the following games (one a loss, one a win), before finishing with a strong game. They cake-walked over Utah, and Kobe obliterated them. And if you wanted to see Kobe with a 3 clicking, it was him in the Phoenix series. He was taking 7 a game at about 43%. I doubt he'd shoot that well in today's game, but when his 3 was falling, he was effectively unguardable. Boston was an interesting series, because he was either incandescent or wretched. He had 3 games south of 50% TS and 2 games north of 61% TS, with a 56.8 and a 58.9 on top of that.

Boston checked LA as a team pretty well, but themselves struggled to score, looking worse compared to their RS performance than did the Lakers. LA was something like -3 ORTG relative to the RS and Boston was closer to -6. And the Lakers just abused them on the offensive glass. Pau and Bynum were also a big part of their D with their rim protection.

Anyway, that's more of a retrospective, and about 2010 specifically. Obviously, the 2009 version was a stronger team, with more dangerous offense.

What would they look like in today's game?

Let's consider the 09 team. Let's start with DIRECT translation. The 09 Lakers were a 112.8 ORTG team, which was 3rd during that season. It would be 22nd in today's game with no changes. Average 3PAr in today's game is .421, and for 09 LAL, it was .217. Obviously a big difference. They were 5th in the league in pace at 94.3 possessions per game, which would be dead-last. The slowest team in 2025 was Boston at 95.7, so LA was playing at a pace 1.4 possessions per game slower than the slowest team in today's game. That's also a big deal for raw FG%, team ORTG, etc, etc, etc. It was a considerably slower team, still barely exited from the grindy awfulness of the late 90s and early 2000s.

So naturally, there would have to be changes. Fisher could probably handle more 3pt volume, especially from the corners. Maybe they use Radman a little more. Pau was showing a little 3pt shot at the tail end of his career, and he was always a good perimeter 2pt shooter, and was a career 75% FT shooter. It's possible he could develop enough corner proficiency to be a threat. The big impediment would be how little shooting that team had relative to this era. Their in a huge hole to start on that front. The triangle is a little archaic, even if its root principles still apply. They'd definitely need to expand their spacing and incorporate some more contemporary sets. Probably a lot more PnR, a bunch of DHO initiation and then just trying to hammer home read-react principles into their guys.




So the basic sketch here is that there's basically no real way that team, as constructed, would be dominating in today's game. I doubt the translation would be as poor as those raw numbers illustrate, of course. Pau would adapt a bit, he was always a good player and a strong shooting big. He wasn't Kevin Love, but he was adapting in low volume near the end of his career anyway, and if it was game-planned earlier, it's likely it would have happened earlier. They didn't have a lot of quality shooters on the team and they were slow as balls relative to today's league, but they'd speed up. Transition buckets are what they are, everyone wants them for obvious reasons. That'd help a little as well. That's not a title-level offensive roster in today's game, but it's a foundation of consequence, and you could add complementary shooting a lot more easily than finding two guys as good as Kobe and Pau.

The rest of it lands on the shoulders of how Kobe would adapt in today's game.

Many people have discussed his inelasticity. After Shaq left, he was pretty much set on doing things his way, and it took several years for him to get away from that mode, kind of going through what MJ did mostly pre-Phil. So the specific manner in which translation was handled would matter. Do we just port that team here? Kobe was taking 4.1 3PA/g in 2009 and 2010 both, 4.6 and 5.7 during the playoffs. I don't actually think it would be that hard to get him shooting 3s, because at that stage of his career, he was already doing it. In 2003, and then also 2006-2008, he took 5+ 3PA/g in the playoffs anyway.

The trick would be shifting him away from the long twos, but the way defense goes now, it wouldn't be too conceptually difficult to trade some 21-footers for 3s and some of those 18- and 19-footers for shots in the 14-17 foot range, which is considerably more wide open than it was in his day. And this version of Kobe liked the post, so it wouldn't be unthinkable to see him smashing elbow post the way Old Man Lebron does. 09 was, if memory serves, the season where Kobe was working with Hakeem and all that anyway. And then you add in extra spacing and more transition possessions...

I suspect Bryant would be fine in this era. Probably close to his prime level of +3% rTS, maybe even a tad higher depending on how well he managed from 3. It's hard to understate how different spacing was for him in that league, and how much tempo affects things, even when you don't get an open dunk out of a transition possession. Acting in the secondary break against loose defense is still VERY different than action against a fully set defense, after all, and enjoying more of THOSE possessions, with floor geometry warped by contemporary-level shooters would be a big deal.

So yeah, while I don't really see the 2009 or 2010 Lakers being any kind of real title threat because of their roster talent, I do think the Pau/Kobe pairing would be very interesting in today's game.