This isn't what happened, at all.
I'll just use an example from Game 1 -
Gobert only had one field goal, and it came in the 8 minutes that Hayes played. That means in all the other minutes that Gobert was on the floor and Hayes wasn't, he was scoreless.
Gobert only had four field goals in 100+ minutes over the first four games; Hayes only averaged 7 minutes over these games. So unless you're arguing Hayes had mind control over him in the brief minutes they shared together which led to him being ineffective once Hayes was no longer on the floor, your argument holds no weight.
Gobert being "lackluster" in those games had nothing to with the insignificant minutes that Hayes played. It had everything to do with him being soft, having stone hands and Minny not utilizing him properly. It had everything to do with the Lakers making him ineffective by running smaller lineups and Minny not knowing how to adjust to use him properly.
Ask yourself this - if Gobert was on the Lakers and Hayes was on the T'Wolves, do you seriously think you'd be making the same argument about how Gobert was subpar all because of what Hayes was doing? Or do you think that Minny would soon realize that Hayes wasn't shyt and he'd be glued to the bench and both Luka and Bron would be making Gobert look like prime Dwight?
The problem with this is, he only came to life in 1 out of 5 games. The Lakers barely played Hayes in the first four games and that reflected in Gobert being ineffective. Gobert putting up those numbers in the last game was him and Minny finally waking up and taking advantage of what they should've done from Game 1. Hayes wouldn't have done shyt to stop that but quickly foul out.
Why put all this emphasis on one game when there were four other games? What about the other three games they lost where Gobert was barely a factor?
There were no adjustments the Lakers could've made in that game other than implement a Hack-a-Shaq to force Finch to sub him out. But that still wouldn't have mattered, because by the time the 4th quarter came around, they'd be running into the same dead-end they had all series.
There's no strategy that would've made any notable difference. The size, athleticism, health and depth margin was just too great to overcome.
Naive sounding ass nikka probably don’t even follow basketball.
" but you dumbasses are writing dissertations about 40 year old Bron losing on a team without a center 
