PDA

View Full Version : First Take - Would ANY of the Lakers teams defeat the Warriors?



kobe4thewinbang
12-16-2016, 05:26 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3B9I33s7nY

Mods, put this in comparison if need be. But I can't believe Max is saying no Lakers team would defeat the Warriors. Hello?! The Cavaliers just beat them three straight times. Sure, there were some what-if issues, but the Cavaliers won.

Thoughts?

I say no way...the Lakers had too much talent over the years. Like Stephen A. said, lots of good defenders. A go-for-the-kill Kobe Bryant, the unstoppable SHAQ, Kareem dropping 50 on you, Magic running the floor, Jerry West, I mean, c'mon!

What team do you think would be the best one against the Warriors?

tredigs
12-16-2016, 05:36 PM
Current rules I'm guessing? Obviously this team could be beat by some of the Laker squads, but I can't think of one I'd have as a series favorite (even 01 Lakers Id rather have my $ on GS with Durant). As dominant as Shaq and KAJ would be offensively and on the glass, it does little to slow down Golden States firepower. There would be some great series though.

Still, it's dumb when you see hot takes like this after they just lost the Finals. It's a better conversation if they take down a title or two with this squad first.

Vee-Rex
12-16-2016, 05:59 PM
For current rules I'd probably put this GS team as the favorite over any Lakers team.

But I think the best Lakers team vs. these Warriors would be the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. There's just no way they'd be able to handle Shaq. If they were able to refine their team to be more 3-point friendly to fit this era (similar to Howard's Orlando Magic teams) I'd take them over these Warriors. A Shaq/Kobe Lakers with better 3-point shooters could be the best team of all time.

tredigs
12-16-2016, 06:30 PM
For current rules I'd probably put this GS team as the favorite over any Lakers team.

But I think the best Lakers team vs. these Warriors would be the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. There's just no way they'd be able to handle Shaq. If they were able to refine their team to be more 3-point friendly to fit this era (similar to Howard's Orlando Magic teams) I'd take them over these Warriors. A Shaq/Kobe Lakers with better 3-point shooters could be the best team of all time.

It would be interesting to see which team would have to bend more. We could see something like a Klay for Gobert trade if he was actually in the league.

ewing
12-16-2016, 06:34 PM
For current rules I'd probably put this GS team as the favorite over any Lakers team.

But I think the best Lakers team vs. these Warriors would be the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. There's just no way they'd be able to handle Shaq. If they were able to refine their team to be more 3-point friendly to fit this era (similar to Howard's Orlando Magic teams) I'd take them over these Warriors. A Shaq/Kobe Lakers with better 3-point shooters could be the best team of all time.


that fits the narrative and makes sense but they nearly got bullied out by Thunder. That wasn't Shaq underneath.

ewing
12-16-2016, 06:35 PM
It would be interesting to see which team would have to bend more. We could see something like a Klay for Gobert trade if he was actually in the league.

its very interesting and that's a credit to your team

Giannis94
12-16-2016, 07:18 PM
71 Bucks. In 4.

Chronz
12-16-2016, 07:31 PM
Shaq would change the way the league plays.

Jeffy25
12-16-2016, 08:30 PM
Shaq would change the way the league plays.

This, so would Kareem even

HandsOnTheWheel
12-16-2016, 09:33 PM
Yes

IKnowHoops
12-16-2016, 11:44 PM
This, so would Kareem even

DRob would just average 50/15/5 against them.

IndyRealist
12-17-2016, 02:26 AM
Who do they have to match up against Magic?

europagnpilgrim
12-17-2016, 02:28 AM
Lakers of 00' and 01' could challenge them and possibly beat them, they would have no answer for Shaq and he would foul the entire frontline out or whoever guards him will be in constant foul trouble

Lakers that won 33 in a row back in the day could have challenged them also since a aged Dipper was still capable of going for 50-60pts when challenged but he had better talent so he played to whatever his team needed him to do and if he was a younger version then most definitely they would mop the Warriors with a healthy Baylor and West, and that Magic/Kareem team had the more overall talent/right pieces to play with them also and possibly win the series

thing is with Warriors 4 headed core is they are all young(right side of 30) but with enough years of experience so they are the most dangerous since all the others had a young but dangerous phenom with a aged(Kareem/Dipper) or overweight(Shaq) phenom for the most part

lakerfan85
12-17-2016, 08:58 AM
For current rules I'd probably put this GS team as the favorite over any Lakers team.

But I think the best Lakers team vs. these Warriors would be the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. There's just no way they'd be able to handle Shaq. If they were able to refine their team to be more 3-point friendly to fit this era (similar to Howard's Orlando Magic teams) I'd take them over these Warriors. A Shaq/Kobe Lakers with better 3-point shooters could be the best team of all time.

Fox, Horry, and Fisher were pretty decent three point shooters..

mightybosstone
12-17-2016, 10:05 AM
In a seven game series, give me the Shaq and Kobe Lakers at their peak. The Warriors would just have no answer for Shaq. The Showtime Lakers versus this squad would certainly be fun to watch, but I don't know how that team would handle playing in today's 3-point era and I think they might get crushed.

Chronz
12-17-2016, 03:30 PM
who do they have to match up against magic?
kd

ewing
12-17-2016, 03:32 PM
Fox, Horry, and Fisher were pretty decent three point shooters..

no doubt. Fox was a sniper and Horry wasn't far behind.

Chronz
12-17-2016, 03:33 PM
Do we still respect Phils stance on basketball? Because according to him, the only team that stood a chance against his bulls were the Wilt and West led Lakers. Maybe it's matchups but don't under sell them. West and Goodrich would be even better under today's rules

Bruno
12-17-2016, 04:17 PM
better question, could these Warriors beat the synergy-apex 2015 Warriors?

they'd get eaten alive by Shaq. it'd be like the 2000 finals vs Indy, but worse. i dont think we appreciate how much peak shaq would obliterate these Warriors. that goes for older KAJ and Wilt to a lesser degree too. Green would be in foul trouble all game against Shaq, he'd look like a smaller Dale Davis.

mightybosstone
12-17-2016, 05:39 PM
I just don't see how any team that peaked before the implementation of the 3-point shot would stand a chance with today's rules against these Warriors. They won't be acclimated to this level of floor spacing defensively and they won't be effective enough behind the arc to keep up with them, regardless if they have Kareem or Wilt.

mightybosstone
12-17-2016, 05:42 PM
Do we still respect Phils stance on basketball? Because according to him, the only team that stood a chance against his bulls were the Wilt and West led Lakers. Maybe it's matchups but don't under sell them. West and Goodrich would be even better under today's rules
I think they'd get slaughtered. Not enough range offensively and not enough length defensively. Who are they going to put on Durant? A 6'5" Elgin Baylor?

PurpleLynch
12-17-2016, 06:28 PM
Imo yes. The Shaq-Kobe Lakers could do it and also the Magic-KAJ. You can't expect a dominant team in a series like that,never. But I think in a seven game series they could overcome them. And by the way,before crowning GS the next Nba's champions,let's see how they will do in the playoffs:in my mind they are the clear favourite,but that doesn't rule out different outcomes(like last year with the Cavs).

D Blue987
12-17-2016, 06:55 PM
This current Golden State team has no answer for a dominant hall of famer in the middle. The Lakers would dominate the inside game. Look what happened last year to GS in the finals once they lost Bogut vs. the Cavs. They just took it to the hoop and dominated them inside. Shaq and Kareem would demolish the Warriors inside easily. Only question is if the Warriors could shoot their hearts out to overcome their deficiency on the interior. Could they? Yes Would it be enough to win a 7 game series? Probably not.

Phantom Dreamer
12-17-2016, 07:33 PM
Do we still respect Phils stance on basketball? Because according to him, the only team that stood a chance against his bulls were the Wilt and West led Lakers. Maybe it's matchups but don't under sell them. West and Goodrich would be even better under today's rules
I think they'd get slaughtered. Not enough range offensively and not enough length defensively. Who are they going to put on Durant? A 6'5" Elgin Baylor?When doing these type of comparisons from different eras, you can't just take a team from today and plop them in the league 45 years ago. If you're going to match them up, you need to envision them at an even playing field, with the same training and nutrition. Then make a determination. Think deeper.

ewing
12-17-2016, 07:38 PM
I think they'd get slaughtered. Not enough range offensively and not enough length defensively. Who are they going to put on Durant? A 6'5" Elgin Baylor?


maybe. KD gets that a lot now. That's why he is good. It doesn't make his team unbeatable.

Sadds The Gr8
12-17-2016, 08:02 PM
GSW would smack fire outta all of them with today's rules

mightybosstone
12-17-2016, 09:14 PM
When doing these type of comparisons from different eras, you can't just take a team from today and plop them in the league 45 years ago. If you're going to match them up, you need to envision them at an even playing field, with the same training and nutrition. Then make a determination. Think deeper.

I think I can absolutely do it that way because we're talking about a totally ridiculous hypothetical scenario. The OP didn't put any qualifications on it, so I'm going to interpret this matchup exactly how he stated, which is a team from another era playing today's athletes. And in that scenario, with today's rules and better, longer athletes, I just don't see a team from 60s or 70s having a chance in hell.

ewing
12-17-2016, 10:32 PM
GSW would smack fire outta all of them with today's rules

they'd smack the fire out of them? Is that a saying?

Quinnsanity
12-17-2016, 11:15 PM
I think the Warriors beat any Laker team, but it's also an unfair question. The Warriors would have built differently if they'd have known they had to play someone of Shaq or Kareem caliber. They'd trade Iggy and picks for a defensive big man. In fact they probably just dump Iggy instead of Bogut.

Sadds The Gr8
12-18-2016, 12:51 AM
they'd smack the fire out of them? Is that a saying?

remove "the". get with the times old man

Giannis94
12-18-2016, 12:53 AM
they'd smack the fire out of them? Is that a saying?

He must be refering to the SpaceJam video game from like 2010 where theres a bunch of fire used as power ups to create insane dunks.

lakerfan85
12-18-2016, 01:54 AM
The 00/01 Lakers would've countered the warriors signing of KD by signing Lebron..

BKLYNpigeon
12-18-2016, 04:08 AM
Shaq would be a handful for sure.

Warriors create a lot of problems for the 00 Lakers team. I don't think Lakers can handle the pace of the game. Would be have Motivated Shaq or Fat Shaq running up and down the court? Who's Guarding Draymond as a stretch 4? Derek Fischer on Curry?

would be fun to watch.

Giannis94
12-18-2016, 10:26 AM
The 00/01 Lakers would've countered the warriors signing of KD by signing Lebron..
This right here is why the NBA us a 4 team league

LA4life24/8
12-18-2016, 09:31 PM
Ill take the 00-01 lakers in 6. They beat some damn good teams in the west that year. They were basically unstoppable. Shaq might average 50 pts per. But it could go either way. It would be a very fun series to watch.

Shlumpledink
12-18-2016, 10:56 PM
Not only was that 00/01 Lakers team dominating offensively but they could play good team defense. Horry and Horace Grant were good team defenders who played well with Shaq. Fox was a good individual defender who also helped well, as well, he seemed to play shooters well.

Bryant at his peak was probably best suited at ball denial defense. He might have been the best ball denial defender at the time, so he would probably play well against someone like Klay Thompson. I guess you'd have to put Fisher on Igoudala, which I don't think is too tall of a task against him.

I could see the Lakers matching up well here. The high pick and roll would bother Shaq, but he's probably going to average 40/20.

Romeo Naes
12-19-2016, 03:10 AM
Curry has choked away two straight finals appearances. Let's see how he does this year if he makes it there before we answer this question. Durant also has some question marks about his big game appearances as well. If regular season Curry and Durant both show up, then we would have a seven game series where anyone could take it in my opinion.

Romeo Naes
12-19-2016, 03:12 AM
Ill take the 00-01 lakers in 6. They beat some damn good teams in the west that year. They were basically unstoppable. Shaq might average 50 pts per. But it could go either way. It would be a very fun series to watch.

Honestly, Shaq might have some trouble running up and down the court that many times and so often. Luckily for the Lakers, no one ever challenged them in that way.

Lakers + Giants
12-19-2016, 07:52 AM
I think it's the 01Lakers that would be the Best competition. Who wins? Idk. I legit think it would go 7 tho.

Hawkeye15
12-19-2016, 11:12 AM
The thing is, no way the Warriors have this same roster if peak Shaq is in the league...

They would have for sure moved some of their loaded exterior to acquire something to try and stop Shaq. At least to a MUCH higher degree in which they currently could (which is not at all).

tredigs
12-19-2016, 12:43 PM
The thing is, no way the Warriors have this same roster if peak Shaq is in the league...

They would have for sure moved some of their loaded exterior to acquire something to try and stop Shaq. At least to a MUCH higher degree in which they currently could (which is not at all).

Worth mentioning that their paint protection has actually being upper echelon this season (goes against the narrative I know) and they actually have the top-ranked defense over the past month (up to 5th on the year). A strong case could be made that they're better than the Lakers on both ends, and that the Lakers would actually be the team that suffered more defensively with Shaq than the Warriors against him.

I truly don't know if they'd adjust or simply go for the approach of trading blows and trusting their superior offense.

Vee-Rex
12-19-2016, 01:34 PM
I truly don't know if they'd adjust or simply go for the approach of trading blows and trusting their superior offense.

I think GS would trade blows, and I'd probably do the same. 3's are just better than 2's.

Not to mention Shaq's PnR defense (even in his prime) wasn't good. He was reluctant to go out and defend the perimeter. That wasn't exploited nowhere near the amount it would be exploited in the modern era and especially against this Warriors team. Curry would feast when bringing Shaq to the perimeter in a Draymond/Steph high PnR. Open 3-point shots and drives to the basket would be so simple for Steph.

Although Shaq would dominate on offense... truthfully the only shot the Shaq/Kobe Lakers would have of winning is if Shaq puts Green + others in foul trouble (might happen) and Kobe just tears it up. Shaq missing free throw attempts could pad the Warriors lead if they're blazing 3's, but the game might slow down a bit as well.

I really like thinking about this matchup, and while I'm confident those Lakers could beat the Warriors in a game, beating them 4 times in a 7-game series seems daunting to me.

Vee-Rex
12-19-2016, 01:43 PM
The thing is, no way the Warriors have this same roster if peak Shaq is in the league...

They would have for sure moved some of their loaded exterior to acquire something to try and stop Shaq. At least to a MUCH higher degree in which they currently could (which is not at all).

Everyone thinks that you need size to beat this Warriors team and that Shaq's size would cause problems. Sure, but those problems don't necessarily mitigate the problems the Warriors would give to a huge center who isn't very agile.

The only two teams to beat or come close to beating GS in the past 2 years are the Thunder and the Cavs. The Thunder had a unique lineup that had tons of length, agility, and mobility on their defense 1-5. Adams, Ibaka, Durant, and Roberson all had length. Crazy combination of size/mobility.

The Cavs had agility and could go small. People usually ignore LeBron when talking about a frontcourt but LeBron is a problem at the PF position. TT, LeBron, RJ, and JR were able to switch and defend on the perimeter quite well in the finals.

I guess my point is - too often I think we assume that a team like GS will have to adjust to another team with behemoth size in the paint, and too often I see GS making THOSE teams need to adjust.

Hawkeye15
12-19-2016, 02:39 PM
Worth mentioning that their paint protection has actually being upper echelon this season (goes against the narrative I know) and they actually have the top-ranked defense over the past month (up to 5th on the year). A strong case could be made that they're better than the Lakers on both ends, and that the Lakers would actually be the team that suffered more defensively with Shaq than the Warriors against him.

I truly don't know if they'd adjust or simply go for the approach of trading blows and trusting their superior offense.

The problem is, Shaq would foul out your one "rim protector" by halftime, or at least have him removed from the floor. That, or you concede dunk after dunk.

You would need roster change to play against Shaq. Dunks always go in, 3's don't.

I think the 86's Celtics could also beat this current GS team. Too much size.

dhopisthename
12-19-2016, 02:42 PM
so 2001-2002 lakers squad that went 16-1 in the playoffs was
Fisher-Kober-Fox-Horry-Shaq
vs
Curry-Thompson-Durant-Green-zaza

Lakers do have the guys to defend the Warriors, but the warriors have so much more firepower. the key of course is how effective shaq would be on defense and how much he could do on offense. Those lakers had a O rating of 109.4 vs 101.7 D rating. Warriors have a 114 offensive rating vs a 101.7 defensive rating. kinda makes it compelling that the warriors are just better.

Hawkeye15
12-19-2016, 03:08 PM
so 2001-2002 lakers squad that went 16-1 in the playoffs was
Fisher-Kober-Fox-Horry-Shaq
vs
Curry-Thompson-Durant-Green-zaza

Lakers do have the guys to defend the Warriors, but the warriors have so much more firepower. the key of course is how effective shaq would be on defense and how much he could do on offense. Those lakers had a O rating of 109.4 vs 101.7 D rating. Warriors have a 114 offensive rating vs a 101.7 defensive rating. kinda makes it compelling that the warriors are just better.

we also live in the time of efficiency. It's hard to just point out that a team is more efficient today. Everyone now has stats guys that tell them what shots are gone. Meaning, remember all those 18 footers Kobe shot? That doesn't fly now. He would have been FORCED to develop his three point shot in today's game.

tredigs
12-19-2016, 05:31 PM
The problem is, Shaq would foul out your one "rim protector" by halftime, or at least have him removed from the floor. That, or you concede dunk after dunk.

You would need roster change to play against Shaq. Dunks always go in, 3's don't.

I think the 86's Celtics could also beat this current GS team. Too much size.

I sort of doubt he would be as dominant as some think. We've seen Shaq against far worse defenses and did he ever even average north of 40 PPG or something ridiculous like 70% from the floor? I sure can't think of any times that happened. If there was no 3seconds, no charge calls and fatigue from chasing all game defensively wasn't an issue, I'd be more receptive to this line of thinking. I.E. in a streetball game first to 21, I could see them being favorites. In the NBA, I think the Warriors hold more advantages over the Lakers than otherwise.

Birds Celts would have to take more threes to stick with the Dubs, but personnel wise they could potentially be the best ever (maybe 2nd to these Warriors) and would fare well in this era.

Hawkeye15
12-19-2016, 06:52 PM
I sort of doubt he would be as dominant as some think. We've seen Shaq against far worse defenses and did he ever even average north of 40 PPG or something ridiculous like 70% from the floor? I sure can't think of any times that happened. If there was no 3seconds, no charge calls and fatigue from chasing all game defensively wasn't an issue, I'd be more receptive to this line of thinking. I.E. in a streetball game first to 21, I could see them being favorites. In the NBA, I think the Warriors hold more advantages over the Lakers than otherwise.

Birds Celts would have to take more threes to stick with the Dubs, but personnel wise they could potentially be the best ever (maybe 2nd to these Warriors) and would fare well in this era.


well, if you are going to just move teams across era's, than what rules are we playing with? Does DJ get to hold and ride Curry all game? Remember too, a team now like the C's, would shoot a ton more 3's, and make them. The game has evolved, we have to ask what rules, and what changes would teams make to play in a certain time frame?

Peak Shaq is rolling over the Dubs. He couldn't be stopped. But, the Lakers defense would need to contain the shooters obviously. Again, the great teams over the years would still be great, they would simply have a slightly different looking roster to fit modern rules.

I mean cmon man, the Dubs have nobody to even make Shaq sweat. Zaza? He would be in foul trouble immediately. Then there is Kobe to deal with..

Vee-Rex
12-19-2016, 07:00 PM
I say let Shaq get his 40 points on 14/19 shooting and 12/21 from the line.

Let Kobe get his 32 points on 9/23 shooting. They would probably still lose.

tredigs
12-19-2016, 07:35 PM
I say let Shaq get his 40 points on 14/19 shooting and 12/21 from the line.

Let Kobe get his 32 points on 9/23 shooting. They would probably still lose.
Basically exactly what I'm saying/seeing as well. Shaq will not go out there and put up 50+ points every night (we would have seen this if it was something he could do), and he's going to be a liability against the type of offense GS runs. He would dominate for sure, but I'm just not entirely convinced that the trade off is a net+ for them. Also he was a 53% foul shooter so it's not the worst thing in the world to have someone like Zaza or McGee or Damian Jones just wrap him up if he gets under the rim on them (which he wouldn't always, they would get stops, force charges etc on certain possessions). 53.5% from the line is 1.07 points per possession right? Warriors average north of 1.15 points per possession, and I have little reason to believe they would fall short of that against the Lakers (specifically as they're only going to gel better as time progresses here).