Teleport the 2010 Lakers into today's league, how many do they win?

[juanc]

2010 Lakers had The Machine on their roster, and he would eat the league alive if he was still active nowadays.

Easy championship!

[nikster]

There's 0 reason to increase 3 point shooting attempts just because of what the other team does on a nightly bases. All they have to do is focus on making the defensive stop to get the ball back, then once the ball is in their hands. They can maintain 7 3's if they feel the need to and continue to utilize their bigs in the paint, slashing to the rim, and midrange shots as they did in 2010 inside of that triangle offense. No reason they can't still win with that formula.

There's lots of reason to believe increased 3 point shooting would be important. How many teams in the last 5 years had a good offense while being below average in 3 point shooting? Let alone worst in the league by a large margin

They would do fine. Just like they did in 2010.

They're were 11th offensive rating in 2010....like I said, not a single good offense with poor 3 ppint shooting, let alone league worst

[tsherkin]

AD and Pau play the same position, they don't work together. Kobe is also too inefficient and ball dominant to be an optimal sidekick to Lebron.

You're assuming that Kobe would be produce identical efficiency from his time in 2010, though. He's already shown in his actual career that he adjusts upward with changes from 05 and onward, and was rocking 57% TS as late as 2013, at 34, in his 17th season. It's quite likely he'd be (at the worst) an above-league-average scorer ITO efficiency in today's environment, and in his hey hey was a +3% rTS guy. Calling him "inefficient" isn't really accurate. He'd be a terrible sidekick to Lebron, for sure, but c'mon now. Inefficiency isn't why.

I don't think his TS% can get much higher than it was in the post 05 period. The benefits today's players get wouldn't help Kobe because of his inelastic play style and shot diet. He would and did benefit from the changes to the touch rules, those help him no matter how he plays. The modern style changes are different, to get the benefits you have to play a very different way that I see no evidence Kobe was capable of (and much evidence that he is not).

I don't think this is correct. I think the increased pace and finishing percentages in the RA would make a large difference. Especially for a Kobe getting over a fifth of his shots there even then.

There is Phil, who was probably holding Kobe back individually to some extent with the triangle. With not-Phil, despite all your commentary about being inelastic, it is essentially a foregone conclusion that he would become a helio PnR spammer like a lot of the other stars today. Nothing to suggest he wouldn't love that central focus or how easy that would makd getting into the lane for him. And he was a great finisher. And even Phil allowed for some PnR, so even in this context, he would likely see some benefit from that.

I get that you like crapping on Kobe, and that he was stubborn, but he also wasnt an idiot and lesser players are seeing visible benefit in today's game. He would too.

[Celts17Pride]

The 2010 Lakers barely got by the old Celtics. Barely! Pick a different team

[FrodoBaggins]

They'd be right up the top of the Western Conference. People focus too much on the narrative of "the modern game." They were great then and they'd be great now.

[ConSarnit]

LOL I love the fact you all keep bringing up 3pt shot like It's do or die If a team can't shoot 3's they won't make It or win It all.

Have you all already forgot the Bucks In 21 with Giannis, according to google they shot 32.1% the entire playoffs "according to google" and remember the media and everyone saying how bad they were and couldn't win, but ended up winning and you all start talking like the 3 ball Is the most Important? And this was just done In 21 oof.

Are the Lakers team just as good as the Bucks In 21? I don't know for all too judge and go by stats and another topic, but saying that the Lakers 2010 would be bad due to the 3ball and having yet another team prove that you can win with out the 3 ball and shooting 32.1% proves you can still win chips with out shooting the 3ball all that well

peace out

Shooting the 3 comes down to 2 factors: hitting 3’s and forcing the other team to guard you from 3. Teams were still forced to guard the Bucks from 3, even if they didn’t hit them. That opens up space for other players to get to the rim or take advantage of matchups (like in iso).

The 2010 Lakers took what would today be considered a massive amount of midrange attempts. They made 42% of them. So not only would they be taking the most “worst” shots their output on those shots would be really really bad.

If you are a heavy midrange team (the Lakers would be crazy heavy in todays game) that means defenders are much closer to the paint. That means not only are they getting really bad offense from midrange but now they can’t get to the rim because the paint is clogged. The Bucks might not have hit a lot of 3’s but at least defenders would be pulled out of the paint opening up interior space for others. Not to mention the Bucks had 3pt shooting bigs (Lopez and Portis) who forced the other teams bigs to defend the perimeter, opening up the paint even more (having a 3pt shooting center is extremely valuable to an offense).

The threat of 3pt shooting is incredibly valuable today and you can’t really have a functional offense without it. The Lakers wouldn’t be bad because their defense would still be very good but that would get dragged down by their anemic offense (which would probably be worst in the league).

[ConSarnit]

They'd be right up the top of the Western Conference. People focus too much on the narrative of "the modern game." They were great then and they'd be great now.

Find me a team with a bottom 5 offense who has finished top 4 in their conference. There has been 1 team in the past decade who has won 40 games with a bottom 5 offense.

If you took the 2010 Lakers and teleported them to todays game they would have the worst offense in the league. This isn’t even a criticism of the Lakers, it was just the way teams played in 2010.

[One_and_Done]

They'd be right up the top of the Western Conference. People focus too much on the narrative of "the modern game." They were great then and they'd be great now.

Find me a team with a bottom 5 offense who has finished top 4 in their conference. There has been 1 team in the past decade who has won 40 games with a bottom 5 offense.

If you took the 2010 Lakers and teleported them to todays game they would have the worst offense in the league. This isn’t even a criticism of the Lakers, it was just the way teams played in 2010.

Pretty much this.

[YogurtProducer]

They'd be right up the top of the Western Conference. People focus too much on the narrative of "the modern game." They were great then and they'd be great now.

Find me a team with a bottom 5 offense who has finished top 4 in their conference. There has been 1 team in the past decade who has won 40 games with a bottom 5 offense.

If you took the 2010 Lakers and teleported them to todays game they would have the worst offense in the league. This isn’t even a criticism of the Lakers, it was just the way teams played in 2010.

Pretty much this.

Which is why these conversations are always dumb. The reality is they would not be that good without significantly making assumptions they would all be able to start hitting the 3 ball. And I find that whenever these convo's happen it seems like every player is projected to be a 40% 3 point shooter if they played today

[One_and_Done]

You're assuming that Kobe would be produce identical efficiency from his time in 2010, though. He's already shown in his actual career that he adjusts upward with changes from 05 and onward, and was rocking 57% TS as late as 2013, at 34, in his 17th season. It's quite likely he'd be (at the worst) an above-league-average scorer ITO efficiency in today's environment, and in his hey hey was a +3% rTS guy. Calling him "inefficient" isn't really accurate. He'd be a terrible sidekick to Lebron, for sure, but c'mon now. Inefficiency isn't why.

I don't think his TS% can get much higher than it was in the post 05 period. The benefits today's players get wouldn't help Kobe because of his inelastic play style and shot diet. He would and did benefit from the changes to the touch rules, those help him no matter how he plays. The modern style changes are different, to get the benefits you have to play a very different way that I see no evidence Kobe was capable of (and much evidence that he is not).

I don't think this is correct. I think the increased pace and finishing percentages in the RA would make a large difference. Especially for a Kobe getting over a fifth of his shots there even then.

There is Phil, who was probably holding Kobe back individually to some extent with the triangle. With not-Phil, despite all your commentary about being inelastic, it is essentially a foregone conclusion that he would become a helio PnR spammer like a lot of the other stars today. Nothing to suggest he wouldn't love that central focus or how easy that would makd getting into the lane for him. And he was a great finisher. And even Phil allowed for some PnR, so even in this context, he would likely see some benefit from that.

I get that you like crapping on Kobe, and that he was stubborn, but he also wasnt an idiot and lesser players are seeing visible benefit in today's game. He would too.

Yeh, I disagree.

[Jedi32]

The 2010 Lakers barely got by the old Celtics. Barely! Pick a different team

People seem to forget those lakers were old too. That wasn't prime Kobe. 2010 was that teams third straight finals. Acting like a prime lakers team struggled with an old celtics team is false, especially since the celtics didn't make the finals the previous year like the Lakers did.