Warriors: Shaq says his 2001 Lakers team would beat the Warriors

[rude1_79]

let's not act like OKC didn't have these Warriors on a chokehold before they did it to themselves ..

agree. i dont see those lakers losing a 3-1 lead if they had it.

[LkrFan]

Shaq > Curry
Kobe < Thompson
Horry < Green

Shaq was a monster... But he can't carry a bunch of scrubs against a TEAM

[LkrFan]

The Lakers couldn't guard Mike Bibby and Damon Stoudamire because Derek Fisher is slow and Shaq never shows on a screen.

Curry will average 60 points a game and Thompson 40 points a game against those Lakers.

There's two sides. Who guards 22 year old Kobe - Green? Iggy?

[LkrFan]

It would have been interesting to see that Lakers team against teams that actually had legit contending rosters, rather than a couple of RS win-padding teams tbh

Lakers went thru the 210 that year IIRC. What you tryna say HH?

[LkrFan]

Iggy and Klay could work him. , Steph played LeBron a few times the other day and did well enough. Though, of course he fouled the out of him with no call.

LeHype is not nearly as good as Kobe as a one on one player. Curry could not guard Kobe. Even prime Bruce Lee Bowen had issues with him. You think Klay and Iggy could deal with a spry 22 year old?

[ambchang]

A bit of hyperbole ... but I agree that would most definitely be a problem ...Shaq was a horrid pnr defender. In that aspect of basketball Steven Adams was a far superior big. That being said prime shaq would on Bogut and Fez let alone what he would do to Draymond and Speights. Fox was one of the bestter perimter defenders at chasing through screens (so he would chase Klay)

All of this is fantasy talk ... and cannot be proven.

No question, Shaq will eat the Warriors alive, and I don't see anyone on the Warriors stopping Kobe with today's rules, but their offensive output would be negated by Klays and Currys, and Warriors simply has a better supporting casts in the other areas, and you are talking about trading 2s for 3s.

a couple of thoughts ...
State benefits from a weak NBA ... with a lack of quality bigs to make them pay for small bAll (as I said a few weeks back a big like David Robinson who could run with state, show and hedge in pnr and recover to protect the rim would be ideal way to nullify state, David had the best qualities of Ibaka/Adams/Kanter/roberson in one big, minus the 3pt shooting and look at the problems they caused the State offense)

Robinson would kill the Warriors, as would a big like Hakeem, or even Ewing. , I can see Rik Smits causing issues for GSW. A team with a big who is mobile enough to shut down the paint and defend his man out to 18 can cause all kinds of issues for the Warriors. They can simply have the other four hone in on their man, and show on every Curry/Thompson PnR.

The 2001 Lakers and especially Showtime era Lakers benefit from the lack training, defensive schemes etc. has advanced so when they dominated things were less modern ... 2001 Lakers run was unprecedented ... and Showtime dominated the west like Lebron on steroids.

2001 Lakers were legit. Can't really argue otherwise.

Best team by decades:

80's: I lean 1987 Lakers because Kareem was still effective but Magic/worthy/Scott or in their primes. The numbers bear it out as the most efficient of the Showtime teams. Plus they were so hungry after Hakeem pushed their in in 1986. they were the most efficient offense in NBA history by metrics/

86 Celtics for me. The 83 6ers get criminally underrated as well.

Of the Lakers, it's between the 87 or 85 Lakers, but I'd side with 87 Lakers if I had to choose.

90's: 92 Bulls 2nd most efficient team Jordan in his prime ...

I thought you were arguing the 2nd three-peat bulls were better. Or did I get the guy wrong. But yeah, 92 Bulls were incredible.

00's: 2001 Lakers. The regular season was ty to start but post ASB and playoffs most dominant team since MJ

Yes, we agree on this one. i think the 04 Pistons or the 05 Spurs should come in 2nd. 08 Celtics would be 3rd.

10's: 2014 Spurs* playoff efficiency off the charts and like the 1987 Lakers, a team on a mission. Soon to be replaced by the 2016 warriors.

Can't agree on the 16 Warriors. The playoffs exposed the 16 Warriors as an overrated team. Their record is a function of a weak league, and not the other way around. Conversely, the 14 Spurs got hot at the right time, and really played the Finals in a way that was dominant. That said, the 12 Heat can make a case as well.

Comparing the teams to others of their own era is the only fair way to judge

1987 Lakers edge the 1986 Celts and 83 sixers
2014 Spurs edge 2015 State (based on post-season dominance)
2001 Lakers edge over 2005 Spurs etc.
92 bulls over clutch city, Bad boys or 2nd 3peat bulls

Those were the 4 best teams I ever saw with the 86 Celts 83 sixers, Badboy Pistons

Yeah, we can agree on those.

I think the Warriors are going to do to NBA offense what the Badboy Pistons do to NBA defense.

[ambchang]

A bit of hyperbole ... but I agree that would most definitely be a problem ...Shaq was a horrid pnr defender. In that aspect of basketball Steven Adams was a far superior big. That being said prime shaq would on Bogut and Fez let alone what he would do to Draymond and Speights. Fox was one of the bestter perimter defenders at chasing through screens (so he would chase Klay)

All of this is fantasy talk ... and cannot be proven.

No question, Shaq will eat the Warriors alive, and I don't see anyone on the Warriors stopping Kobe with today's rules, but their offensive output would be negated by Klays and Currys, and Warriors simply has a better supporting casts in the other areas, and you are talking about trading 2s for 3s.

a couple of thoughts ...
State benefits from a weak NBA ... with a lack of quality bigs to make them pay for small bAll (as I said a few weeks back a big like David Robinson who could run with state, show and hedge in pnr and recover to protect the rim would be ideal way to nullify state, David had the best qualities of Ibaka/Adams/Kanter/roberson in one big, minus the 3pt shooting and look at the problems they caused the State offense)

Robinson would kill the Warriors, as would a big like Hakeem, or even Ewing. , I can see Rik Smits causing issues for GSW. A team with a big who is mobile enough to shut down the paint and defend his man out to 18 can cause all kinds of issues for the Warriors. They can simply have the other four hone in on their man, and show on every Curry/Thompson PnR.

The 2001 Lakers and especially Showtime era Lakers benefit from the lack training, defensive schemes etc. has advanced so when they dominated things were less modern ... 2001 Lakers run was unprecedented ... and Showtime dominated the west like Lebron on steroids.

2001 Lakers were legit. Can't really argue otherwise.

Best team by decades:

80's: I lean 1987 Lakers because Kareem was still effective but Magic/worthy/Scott or in their primes. The numbers bear it out as the most efficient of the Showtime teams. Plus they were so hungry after Hakeem pushed their in in 1986. they were the most efficient offense in NBA history by metrics/

86 Celtics for me. The 83 6ers get criminally underrated as well.

Of the Lakers, it's between the 87 or 85 Lakers, but I'd side with 87 Lakers if I had to choose.

90's: 92 Bulls 2nd most efficient team Jordan in his prime ...

I thought you were arguing the 2nd three-peat bulls were better. Or did I get the guy wrong. But yeah, 92 Bulls were incredible.

00's: 2001 Lakers. The regular season was ty to start but post ASB and playoffs most dominant team since MJ

Yes, we agree on this one. i think the 04 Pistons or the 05 Spurs should come in 2nd. 08 Celtics would be 3rd.

10's: 2014 Spurs* playoff efficiency off the charts and like the 1987 Lakers, a team on a mission. Soon to be replaced by the 2016 warriors.

Can't agree on the 16 Warriors. The playoffs exposed the 16 Warriors as an overrated team. Their record is a function of a weak league, and not the other way around. Conversely, the 14 Spurs got hot at the right time, and really played the Finals in a way that was dominant. That said, the 12 Heat can make a case as well.

Comparing the teams to others of their own era is the only fair way to judge

1987 Lakers edge the 1986 Celts and 83 sixers
2014 Spurs edge 2015 State (based on post-season dominance)
2001 Lakers edge over 2005 Spurs etc.
92 bulls over clutch city, Bad boys or 2nd 3peat bulls

Those were the 4 best teams I ever saw with the 86 Celts 83 sixers, Badboy Pistons

Yeah, we can agree on those.

I think the Warriors are going to do to NBA offense what the Badboy Pistons do to NBA defense.

[Kawhitstorm]

See, I think he's a better defender now than 2009/2010. He has much better leverage, and is a better blocker.

And his ability to pass and run the floor would put Shaq in a uncomfortable defensive position.

Bogut was a better shot blocker with the Bucks even with their ty defensive schemes. He used to own the Spurs.

[LkrFan]

You really honestly think Thompson is better than Kobe Bryant? A better shooter no doubt but the rest of his game?

He trolling.

[Kawhitstorm]

What? The Kings with basically that same roster should have beaten them that very next season without rigging. The Spurs were still the Spurs and recently had a le under their belt. I'm not buying that.

Same roster?

Bibby was the MVP of the 2002 WCF while Jason Williams was WestBrick status during crunch time.

[TheGoldStandard]

The glorious thing is that all the nut riders that GS has picked up along the way would go back to cheering for their precious Lakers. Silver is no fool and would easily go the Stern route encouraging the refs to allow LA to play as aggressive as they wanted meanwhile benefiting from some really favorable calls if they were needing it in crunch time.

Lakers would live at the foul line while Draymond, Bogut, Iggy and Livingston would all be in early foul trouble in the 1st half.

[Thread]

The glorious thing is that all the nut riders that GS has picked up along the way would go back to cheering for their precious Lakers. Silver is no fool and would easily go the Stern route encouraging the refs to allow LA to play as aggressive as they wanted meanwhile benefiting from some really favorable calls if they were needing it in crunch time.

Lakers would live at the foul line while Draymond, Bogut, Iggy and Livingston would all be in early foul trouble in the 1st half.

Only pussies & assholes (primarily Spur Fan) blame the officiating.

[TheGoldStandard]

Only pussies & assholes (primarily Spur Fan) blame the officiating.

27 FT's in the 4th quarter alone..

[Thread]

27 FT's in the 4th quarter alone..

Only pussies & assholes blame the officiating.

[Floyd Pacquiao]

Did the 01 Lakers even beat anyone good? They beat a 1 man lead spurs team and a 1 man sixers team.

[Killakobe81]

No question, Shaq will eat the Warriors alive, and I don't see anyone on the Warriors stopping Kobe with today's rules, but their offensive output would be negated by Klays and Currys, and Warriors simply has a better supporting casts in the other areas, and you are talking about trading 2s for 3s.



Robinson would kill the Warriors, as would a big like Hakeem, or even Ewing. , I can see Rik Smits causing issues for GSW. A team with a big who is mobile enough to shut down the paint and defend his man out to 18 can cause all kinds of issues for the Warriors. They can simply have the other four hone in on their man, and show on every Curry/Thompson PnR.



2001 Lakers were legit. Can't really argue otherwise.



86 Celtics for me. The 83 6ers get criminally underrated as well.

Of the Lakers, it's between the 87 or 85 Lakers, but I'd side with 87 Lakers if I had to choose.



I thought you were arguing the 2nd three-peat bulls were better. Or did I get the guy wrong. But yeah, 92 Bulls were incredible.



Yes, we agree on this one. i think the 04 Pistons or the 05 Spurs should come in 2nd. 08 Celtics would be 3rd.



Can't agree on the 16 Warriors. The playoffs exposed the 16 Warriors as an overrated team. Their record is a function of a weak league, and not the other way around. Conversely, the 14 Spurs got hot at the right time, and really played the Finals in a way that was dominant. That said, the 12 Heat can make a case as well.



Yeah, we can agree on those.

I think the Warriors are going to do to NBA offense what the Badboy Pistons do to NBA defense.

1. Amb I did argue initially that I liked the 2nd 3-peat Bulls better. But after diving deeper in to the numbers based on our previous discussion, I have revised my thoughts on the matter. I think having MJ at his apex is more valuable than prime Pippen. Also, I think Rodman was vastly overrated on defense by the Bulls era ... (better rebounder) compared to his Piston's days ... SO having Grant as a the primary front-court defender is probably a wash plus he has the more reliable 15-20 feet jumper.

2. It's funny how David Robinson has become underrated from being overrated. I think Smits would give the Dubs problems but not like david. Obviously dream was also mobile and agile and a better rim protector than David but when you talk about a big that would thrive in the modern NBA Robinson comes to mind to me first. Great mid range jumper, great pnr defender probably the fastest big man end-to end I ever saw. Of course prime Ewing/Hakeem/shaq/Duncan would murder the Dubs down low ... but they would murder any era. I think Robinson in particular would benefit most from the new rules and cause the dubs so many problems. Many consider him a notch below most those other guys and career-wise they may be right ... but if David played in 2016 I think his impact would be tremendous like a combo of prime Dwight Pippen and Ibaka.

3. Obviously Kobe would wreck guys with no hand checks in his prime but I do think Iggy could defend him reasonably well or at least better than most.

4. As for the Dubs should we also hold the first round vs. RC and the Mavs against the 2014 Spurs? Is the Dubs 7 game series vs. OKC any more "exposed" than the Spurs getting pushed by an 8th seed? That doesn't make any sense. IF the dubs repeat not only is the the two year run more impressive but when they were "exposed" their best playerwas less than 100% and facing 2 of the 5 best players in the NBA and had to beat a rested LeBron to repeat. yes the 2016>2014 Spurs if they finish the job.

4. Those Celts were an amazing passing team but again the numbers and my eye test will give the Lakers the edge but for me it is close. I think the 1987 Lakers played a similar game to those Celts but with better speed and finishers ...the celts were the better shooting team though.

5. Nice when we can agree for a change Like I said, I love talkin' hoops with you when a certain player is omitted or only a side note to the story. I respect your history of the game even if I think you overrate Moses and Chuck Daly a bit ...

[Killakobe81]

Did the 01 Lakers even beat anyone good? They beat a 1 man lead spurs team and a 1 man sixers team.

Revisionist history.

IIRC We beat Spurs, Blazers, Sixers and Kings HOF players on those teams:

David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Allen Iverson
Scottie Pippen

All-stars:

Webber, Bibby, Rasheed, Mutombo, Steve Smith, Damon Stodamire, Peja, Zbo, Jermaine O'neal etc.

[Gummi Clutch]

if the bigs on OKC gave them problems...yea he's right

[Floyd Pacquiao]

Revisionist history.

IIRC We beat Spurs, Blazers, Sixers and Kings HOF players on those teams:

David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Allen Iverson
Scottie Pippen

All-stars:

Webber, Bibby, Rasheed, Mutombo, Steve Smith, Damon Stodamire, Peja, Zbo, Jermaine O'neal etc.

Portland was a 7th seed. They wasn't that good. Kings maybe the only solid all around team the Lakers beat. Duncan was all alone playing with a group of TOSBs as was iverson. Mutombo is a solid role player, but isn't really a 2nd or 3rd option.

[HarlemHeat37]

What? The Kings with basically that same roster should have beaten them that very next season without rigging. The Spurs were still the Spurs and recently had a le under their belt. I'm not buying that.

basically the same team? Their 2nd best player/biggest matchup advantage(Bibby) wasn't even on that 2001 squad, tbh..

There's a lot of revisionist history involving that Lakers team, with people strictly looking at the records of their opponents during the RS(which is largely irrelevant, as we have seen throughout time, RS records are usually irrelevant)..have you taken a look at the perimeter compe ion that the Lakers went up against during that run?

35-year old Scottie Pippen/32-year old Steve Smith/Damon Stoudamire/Bonzi Wells
pre-prime Peja Stojakovic/Doug Christie/Jason Williams
2 games of Derek Anderson/Antonio Daniels/37-year old Terry Porter/35-year old Avery Johnson
Allen Iverson/Aaron McKie/Eric Snow

They went up against only one star perimeter player throughout the playoffs..Kobe could coast on D for the entire run, Shaq's lack of mobility couldn't be exploited, etc..the same Lakers team couldn't even stop Mike Bibby from torching them the following season..

[baseline bum]

Only pussies & assholes (primarily Spur Fan) blame the officiating.

Only pussies and assholes get waxed by the NVA

[Killakobe81]

basically the same team? Their 2nd best player/biggest matchup advantage(Bibby) wasn't even on that 2001 squad, tbh..

There's a lot of revisionist history involving that Lakers team, with people strictly looking at the records of their opponents during the RS(which is largely irrelevant, as we have seen throughout time, RS records are usually irrelevant)..have you taken a look at the perimeter compe ion that the Lakers went up against during that run?

35-year old Scottie Pippen/32-year old Steve Smith/Damon Stoudamire/Bonzi Wells
pre-prime Peja Stojakovic/Doug Christie/Jason Williams
2 games of Derek Anderson/Antonio Daniels/37-year old Terry Porter/35-year old Avery Johnson
Allen Iverson/Aaron McKie/Eric Snow

They went up against only one star perimeter player throughout the playoffs..Kobe could coast on D for the entire run, Shaq's lack of mobility couldn't be exploited, etc..the same Lakers team couldn't even stop Mike Bibby from torching them the following season..

Although ESSENTIALLY true ...you cant compare 2002 shaq to 2001 shaq who was horribly out of shape .
Using the Lakers getting torched by Bibby in 2002 has little bearing on 2001.
Those teams were not great ... not even arguing they were ... but isnt that what great teams do ...dominate teams that are not?!
The 2001 Lakers lost only 1 game ...and based on what you guys arguing they did what they were supposed to do.
Many argue today's NBA is even tier yet neither the Heat/Spurs/Dubs over the past 5-6 years were able to get close to that.

[HarlemHeat37]

Although ESSENTIALLY true ...you cant compare 2002 shaq to 2001 shaq who was horribly out of shape .
Using the Lakers getting torched by Bibby in 2002 has little bearing on 2001.
Those teams were not great ... not even arguing they were ... but isnt that what great teams do ...dominate teams that are not?!
The 2001 Lakers lost only 1 game ...and based on what you guys arguing they did what they were supposed to do.
Many argue today's NBA is even tier yet neither the Heat/Spurs/Dubs over the past 5-6 years were able to get close to that.

The 2001 Lakers were arguably the best team of all-time in relation to their compe ion, I'm not arguing against that..

There's just a double standard when people use level of compe ion in arguments against teams when in reality, virtually all "historically dominant" teams had poor compe ion(especially DK's Bulls)..

[Thread]

Only pussies and assholes get waxed by the NVA

They were selling Only your .

[Killakobe81]

The 2001 Lakers were arguably the best team of all-time in relation to their compe ion, I'm not arguing against that..

There's just a double standard when people use level of compe ion in arguments against teams when in reality, virtually all "historically dominant" teams had poor compe ion(especially DK's Bulls)..

most of the goat teams faced only one other truly great team if any ... though in the late 80's you can say that Pistons/celts had to beat each other plus Lakers. Same for early 80's sixers/Celts ...