Horace Grant's value to the Lakers

Posted on LakersGround.net on 5/29/06.

EHL_2 wrote:
You think the Lakers might not have won the championship in 2001 when they were one 20 foot fade-away Iverson jumper away from sweeping the entire postseason? No, I'd have to say they would have done just as well. Not like Horry was old in 01, so he could have certainly played the minutes, and of course all Madsen would have had to do was be a defensive nuisance, that team wasn't lacking any scorers.

And it's not like they couldn't have picked up another PF in 01.

How close did the Lakers come to not winning the championship the prior season? They had to go to a game 5 (out of 5) to win against the Kings and it took a Portland collapse in the fourth quarter of game 7 for the Lakers to advance to the NBA Finals. The next season, the only significant personnel change was adding Horace Grant and the Lakers had the greatest playoff run over. But you think that Horace wasn't a significant contributor.

Horry had bad knees by the '00-'01 season and was particularly bothered by playing on floors over hockey ice. Playing extended regular season minutes would wear Horry out. That is why they needed a PF who could play extended minutes. Grant played the third most minutes on the team and let Horry play essentially the same minutes as the prior season. The three teams the Lakers met before the NBA Finals all had All-Star caliber PF's and the Lakers swept them all. But you think that Horace at PF wasn't a significant contributor.

The next season, without Horace Grant but with Samaki Walker, the Lakers barely made it into the NBA Finals, having to win Game 7 in Sacramento. But you think that Horace wasn't a significant contributor.