2000-’05 Lakers: Replace Kobe w/ Prime Reggie Miller

[tsherkin]

Do we swap Kobe with prime Reggie in 2000 or do the Lakers acquire rookie Reggie in '97 instead of rookie Kobe?

It explicitly says "prime Reggie," as opposed to his rookie version.

[BenoUdrihFTL]

Do we swap Kobe with prime Reggie in 2000 or do the Lakers acquire rookie Reggie in '97 instead of rookie Kobe?

It explicitly says "prime Reggie," as opposed to his rookie version.

'97 rookie Reggie would be prime Reggie in '00. There was no background given tho on how prime Reggie came to be on the Lakers in '00

[tsherkin]

Do we swap Kobe with prime Reggie in 2000 or do the Lakers acquire rookie Reggie in '97 instead of rookie Kobe?

It explicitly says "prime Reggie," as opposed to his rookie version.

'97 rookie Reggie would be prime Reggie in '00. There was no background given tho on how prime Reggie came to be on the Lakers in '00

I think the grammar speaks for itself. Reggie in his prime replaces Kobe as he was from 00-05.

[BenoUdrihFTL]

It explicitly says "prime Reggie," as opposed to his rookie version.

'97 rookie Reggie would be prime Reggie in '00. There was no background given tho on how prime Reggie came to be on the Lakers in '00

I think the grammar speaks for itself. Reggie in his prime replaces Kobe as he was from 00-05.

I'd wager you're correct, but I'd still like to pretend that TS intended my version of the hypothetical

[tsherkin]

I'd wager you're correct, but I'd still like to pretend that TS intended my version of the hypothetical

Seems unlikely, but whatever keeps you engaged, I suppose, haha. No harm, right?

[Bidofo]

Interesting to see some pushback in this thread against Miller even winning 2 rings in this span while the poll indicates the opposite. Personally I lean towards the same 3 rings that Shaq/Kobe won. Since it says prime Miller we can cherrypick the years a little, but I think the best stretch happens to be the first 5 years he's in the playoffs anyway. There's a pretty significant gap between the two as scorers. If we look at per100 stats for the playoffs:

Kobe (00-05): 32.4 ppg/52.2 TS%/108 box ORTG/4.6 obpm
Miller (90-95): 34.4/62.8 TS%/125 box ORTG/6.5 obpm

Worth keeping in mind that Kobe ceded some volume by playing alongside Shaq, but that efficiency difference is monumental even when adjusting for era. And the Lakers played some tough defenses, but frankly Miller just doesn't care. Some of the series he had in this span:

21ppg on 70 TS% vs 90 Pistons (-4.6 defense)
31ppg on 69 TS% vs 93 Knicks (-8.3 defense)
25ppg on 58 TS% vs 94 Knicks (-8.1 defense)
32 ppg on 66 TS% vs 95 Hawks (-3.1 defense)
22 ppg on 58 TS% vs 95 Knicks (-4.5 defense)

Just casually burning arguably the best defensive mini-stretch post-Russell in the 90s Knicks. The sample size is smaller in the earlier years because the Pacers as a whole were generally not a good team yet, and they still managed to have a PS offense of about +6 in that timespan, so I don't see any reason to fault Miller. And there's no need for some dynamic PG to feed him either; pre-Jackson's arrival in 95, who exactly remembers the starting PGs for the Pacers?

The fit between Shaq and Miller is perfect too. A shot diet of 34.1 3PAr% and 45.8 FTAr% is exactly what you would want. The gravity the two have is insane, one can imagine defenders scrambling to guard an off-ball Shaq screen for Miller, I mean it worked so well with Smits and the Davis bros.

If you look at all the close series for the Lakers in that stretch, Kobe wasn't exactly lighting it up. I think Miller still wins those more often than not. And the 2001 Lakers are so far ahead of the pack, they probably don't go 15-1 but they still win. The biggest concerns are a) the dropoff in defense and b) as someone mentioned, whether PJax was willing to adapt his gameplan away from the triangle as I don't think that suits Miller the best. Re: defense, I don't think the dropoff is too large, and certainly not as big as the offensive production, and re: PJax, I trust him to know how to use Miller effectively I guess lol. Fairly reasonable I'd say.

People voting 0 should be banned for trolling man, a 34 year old Miller was outplaying Kobe in the 2000 Finals but an in-prime Miller wouldn't make the Lakers better? Okay. And lauding Kobe's clutch time play as what tips the scale seems ridiculous when the comparison is with Reggie Miller, a guy who made his name off of clutch time play. But what would a Knicks fan know...

[Asianiac_24]

When the shot clock is running down, who would you give the ball to? Derek Fisher iso? There would need to be some roster changes, replacing Mikler for Kobe would mean there are no playmakers on the team

[Asianiac_24]

Interesting to see some pushback in this thread against Miller even winning 2 rings in this span while the poll indicates the opposite. Personally I lean towards the same 3 rings that Shaq/Kobe won. Since it says prime Miller we can cherrypick the years a little, but I think the best stretch happens to be the first 5 years he's in the playoffs anyway. There's a pretty significant gap between the two as scorers. If we look at per100 stats for the playoffs:

Kobe (00-05): 32.4 ppg/52.2 TS%/108 box ORTG/4.6 obpm
Miller (90-95): 34.4/62.8 TS%/125 box ORTG/6.5 obpm

Worth keeping in mind that Kobe ceded some volume by playing alongside Shaq, but that efficiency difference is monumental even when adjusting for era. And the Lakers played some tough defenses, but frankly Miller just doesn't care. Some of the series he had in this span:

21ppg on 70 TS% vs 90 Pistons (-4.6 defense)
31ppg on 69 TS% vs 93 Knicks (-8.3 defense)
25ppg on 58 TS% vs 94 Knicks (-8.1 defense)
32 ppg on 66 TS% vs 95 Hawks (-3.1 defense)
22 ppg on 58 TS% vs 95 Knicks (-4.5 defense)

Just casually burning arguably the best defensive mini-stretch post-Russell in the 90s Knicks. The sample size is smaller in the earlier years because the Pacers as a whole were generally not a good team yet, and they still managed to have a PS offense of about +6 in that timespan, so I don't see any reason to fault Miller. And there's no need for some dynamic PG to feed him either; pre-Jackson's arrival in 95, who exactly remembers the starting PGs for the Pacers?

The fit between Shaq and Miller is perfect too. A shot diet of 34.1 3PAr% and 45.8 FTAr% is exactly what you would want. The gravity the two have is insane, one can imagine defenders scrambling to guard an off-ball Shaq screen for Miller, I mean it worked so well with Smits and the Davis bros.

If you look at all the close series for the Lakers in that stretch, Kobe wasn't exactly lighting it up. I think Miller still wins those more often than not. And the 2001 Lakers are so far ahead of the pack, they probably don't go 15-1 but they still win. The biggest concerns are a) the dropoff in defense and b) as someone mentioned, whether PJax was willing to adapt his gameplan away from the triangle as I don't think that suits Miller the best. Re: defense, I don't think the dropoff is too large, and certainly not as big as the offensive production, and re: PJax, I trust him to know how to use Miller effectively I guess lol. Fairly reasonable I'd say.

People voting 0 should be banned for trolling man, a 34 year old Miller was outplaying Kobe in the 2000 Finals but an in-prime Miller wouldn't make the Lakers better? Okay. And lauding Kobe's clutch time play as what tips the scale seems ridiculous when the comparison is with Reggie Miller, a guy who made his name off of clutch time play. But what would a Knicks fan know...

Kind of unfair to compare Kobe and Reggie in the 00 Finals when you consider that Reggie’s teammate intentionally injured him in G1 and Kobe was playing on a bum ankle, no?

[Jaivl]

When the shot clock is running down, who would you give the ball to? Derek Fisher iso? There would need to be some roster changes, replacing Mikler for Kobe would mean there are no playmakers on the team

I'd take Reggie off a screen any day of the week over a Kobe ISO. You gotta be kidding with this one.

[Asianiac_24]

When the shot clock is running down, who would you give the ball to? Derek Fisher iso? There would need to be some roster changes, replacing Mikler for Kobe would mean there are no playmakers on the team

I'd take Reggie off a screen any day of the week over a Kobe ISO. You gotta be kidding with this one.

Good luck getting that with the defender swarming Derek Fisher and forcing him to make a play.

[Bidofo]

Kind of unfair to compare Kobe and Reggie in the 00 Finals when you consider that Reggie’s teammate intentionally injured him in G1 and Kobe was playing on a bum ankle, no?

Fair enough, though Miller was outplaying Kobe the entire rest of the playoffs anyway. Against the 4th and 6th best defenses, Miller was averaging 23.6 on 61.2 TS%, 123 ORTG. Also one of his most high 3p volume runs at almost 7 per game. All that at 34 and without a Shaq-level teammate.

[Tesla]

1 or 0.

00 they lose to Blazers most likely, but may have squeaked it out. They had a lot of talent that year, Glen Rice, Ron Harper, Horry/Fox off the bench, crazy deep team, so if there is a probable year its this year, but Blazers were just as deep and really gave Shaq fits, No Kobe for game 7 and replace with Miller I dont think they win, but maybe they win in 6 or something and dont go into game 7.

01 they have a really good chance of losing to the Spurs, Kobe killed them, otherwise they matched up very favorably against them and they didnt have HCA, they go down 0-2 in San Antonio to start the series would have been likely.

02- Lose to Kings
03- Lose to Spurs
04- Lose to Spurs, they dont even see Detroit in the finals.

You replace Kobe with Miller during that span and the main difference is Tim Duncan would be in everyones GOAT running with 7-8rings

[ceiling raiser]

4-5. 2001 is the most in doubt.

[Chronz]

Give those Lakers Reggie from kobes rookie years. They'll build with more trad pg and playmaker. Might even keep one of Jones or nick

[Chronz]

1 or 0.

00 they lose to Blazers most likely, but may have squeaked it out. They had a lot of talent that year, Glen Rice, Ron Harper, Horry/Fox off the bench, crazy deep team, so if there is a probable year its this year, but Blazers were just as deep and really gave Shaq fits, No Kobe for game 7 and replace with Miller I dont think they win, but maybe they win in 6 or something and dont go into game 7.

01 they have a really good chance of losing to the Spurs, Kobe killed them, otherwise they matched up very favorably against them and they didnt have HCA, they go down 0-2 in San Antonio to start the series would have been likely.

02- Lose to Kings
03- Lose to Spurs
04- Lose to Spurs, they dont even see Detroit in the finals.

You replace Kobe with Miller during that span and the main difference is Tim Duncan would be in everyones GOAT running with 7-8rings

Those spurs that got swept would still lose. The reason kobe killed them was because they sent the twin towers at Shaq and their starting 2 guard , the only guy with any hope of matching kobes height and athleticism was injured, leaving him in the post or shooting over the top against midgets. Once they have bowen , that's when they beat the Lakers. Reggie would've killed the Spurs enough to win in 6 at the least.

[Chronz]

Interesting to see some pushback in this thread against Miller even winning 2 rings in this span while the poll indicates the opposite. Personally I lean towards the same 3 rings that Shaq/Kobe won. Since it says prime Miller we can cherrypick the years a little, but I think the best stretch happens to be the first 5 years he's in the playoffs anyway. There's a pretty significant gap between the two as scorers. If we look at per100 stats for the playoffs:

Kobe (00-05): 32.4 ppg/52.2 TS%/108 box ORTG/4.6 obpm
Miller (90-95): 34.4/62.8 TS%/125 box ORTG/6.5 obpm

Worth keeping in mind that Kobe ceded some volume by playing alongside Shaq, but that efficiency difference is monumental even when adjusting for era. And the Lakers played some tough defenses, but frankly Miller just doesn't care. Some of the series he had in this span:

21ppg on 70 TS% vs 90 Pistons (-4.6 defense)
31ppg on 69 TS% vs 93 Knicks (-8.3 defense)
25ppg on 58 TS% vs 94 Knicks (-8.1 defense)
32 ppg on 66 TS% vs 95 Hawks (-3.1 defense)
22 ppg on 58 TS% vs 95 Knicks (-4.5 defense)

Just casually burning arguably the best defensive mini-stretch post-Russell in the 90s Knicks. The sample size is smaller in the earlier years because the Pacers as a whole were generally not a good team yet, and they still managed to have a PS offense of about +6 in that timespan, so I don't see any reason to fault Miller. And there's no need for some dynamic PG to feed him either; pre-Jackson's arrival in 95, who exactly remembers the starting PGs for the Pacers?

The fit between Shaq and Miller is perfect too. A shot diet of 34.1 3PAr% and 45.8 FTAr% is exactly what you would want. The gravity the two have is insane, one can imagine defenders scrambling to guard an off-ball Shaq screen for Miller, I mean it worked so well with Smits and the Davis bros.

If you look at all the close series for the Lakers in that stretch, Kobe wasn't exactly lighting it up. I think Miller still wins those more often than not. And the 2001 Lakers are so far ahead of the pack, they probably don't go 15-1 but they still win. The biggest concerns are a) the dropoff in defense and b) as someone mentioned, whether PJax was willing to adapt his gameplan away from the triangle as I don't think that suits Miller the best. Re: defense, I don't think the dropoff is too large, and certainly not as big as the offensive production, and re: PJax, I trust him to know how to use Miller effectively I guess lol. Fairly reasonable I'd say.

People voting 0 should be banned for trolling man, a 34 year old Miller was outplaying Kobe in the 2000 Finals but an in-prime Miller wouldn't make the Lakers better? Okay. And lauding Kobe's clutch time play as what tips the scale seems ridiculous when the comparison is with Reggie Miller, a guy who made his name off of clutch time play. But what would a Knicks fan know...

Kind of unfair to compare Kobe and Reggie in the 00 Finals when you consider that Reggie’s teammate intentionally injured him in G1 and Kobe was playing on a bum ankle, no?

Yeah but the fact that the. Lakers won that game with him playing like 1 quarters worth of basketball and then won the series with him seriously hobbled and inefficient offensively, points to the quality of the team too. Kobes better, but it's close enough in that year and the talent great enough to offset some slippage in other years

[An Unbiased Fan]

The answer is 0 rings, but since it's Kobe.....well thread speaks for itself.

00 Blazers beat LA
01 Kings beat LA
02 Spurs beat LA
03 LA lose in 1st
04 Spurs beat LA

Keep in mind the late 90s Lakers had more talent and failed. Kobe and Shaq is the GOAT duo. Miller isnt the offensive anchor Kobe was, nor the facilitator, or defender

[Tesla]

1 or 0.

00 they lose to Blazers most likely, but may have squeaked it out. They had a lot of talent that year, Glen Rice, Ron Harper, Horry/Fox off the bench, crazy deep team, so if there is a probable year its this year, but Blazers were just as deep and really gave Shaq fits, No Kobe for game 7 and replace with Miller I dont think they win, but maybe they win in 6 or something and dont go into game 7.

01 they have a really good chance of losing to the Spurs, Kobe killed them, otherwise they matched up very favorably against them and they didnt have HCA, they go down 0-2 in San Antonio to start the series would have been likely.

02- Lose to Kings
03- Lose to Spurs
04- Lose to Spurs, they dont even see Detroit in the finals.

You replace Kobe with Miller during that span and the main difference is Tim Duncan would be in everyones GOAT running with 7-8rings

Those spurs that got swept would still lose. The reason kobe killed them was because they sent the twin towers at Shaq and their starting 2 guard , the only guy with any hope of matching kobes height and athleticism was injured, leaving him in the post or shooting over the top against midgets. Once they have bowen , that's when they beat the Lakers. Reggie would've killed the Spurs enough to win in 6 at the least.

Except that Lakers beat the Spurs with Bowen in 04 and 08. The Spurs struggled with the dynamic Kobe brought to the floor, even without Shaq, it was a riddle Pop never quite solved or the other way around something Kobe solved well. The Spurs were going to be a really tough out with or without Derek Anderson. Duncan Spurs were 12-3 vs Reggies pacers and Reggie averaged 16 points, he certainly wouldve got his but no way he plays at the level of Kobe in those series.

[Chronz]

1 or 0.

00 they lose to Blazers most likely, but may have squeaked it out. They had a lot of talent that year, Glen Rice, Ron Harper, Horry/Fox off the bench, crazy deep team, so if there is a probable year its this year, but Blazers were just as deep and really gave Shaq fits, No Kobe for game 7 and replace with Miller I dont think they win, but maybe they win in 6 or something and dont go into game 7.

01 they have a really good chance of losing to the Spurs, Kobe killed them, otherwise they matched up very favorably against them and they didnt have HCA, they go down 0-2 in San Antonio to start the series would have been likely.

02- Lose to Kings
03- Lose to Spurs
04- Lose to Spurs, they dont even see Detroit in the finals.

You replace Kobe with Miller during that span and the main difference is Tim Duncan would be in everyones GOAT running with 7-8rings

Those spurs that got swept would still lose. The reason kobe killed them was because they sent the twin towers at Shaq and their starting 2 guard , the only guy with any hope of matching kobes height and athleticism was injured, leaving him in the post or shooting over the top against midgets. Once they have bowen , that's when they beat the Lakers. Reggie would've killed the Spurs enough to win in 6 at the least.

Except that Lakers beat the Spurs with Bowen in 04 and 08. The Spurs struggled with the dynamic Kobe brought to the floor, even without Shaq, it was a riddle Pop never quite solved or the other way around something Kobe solved well. The Spurs were going to be a really tough out with or without Derek Anderson. Duncan Spurs were 12-3 vs Reggies pacers and Reggie averaged 16 points, he certainly wouldve got his but no way he plays at the level of Kobe in those series.

I know the Spurs lost other years, thats kind of my point. In essence, Im saying the Lakers dont beat the Spurs if they have someone to check Reggie Miller. But in 01, they spanked an injured Spurs team to a degree that the drop off in talent isn't so crippling to their contention.

The reason I mentioned Bowen is because if hes on the team, then Kobes presence is more crucial for victory. Big difference between the 01 Spurs and the 02, 03 Spurs was due to the presence of Bowen. I mean look at the issues they have on the perimeter.

Without DA, their #2 option, they were forced to lean in on a retiring Sean Elliot, the corpse of Terry Porter (37, a year away from retirement), 35 year old Kerr, 35 Avery Johnson. AND prime Antonio Daniels. Thats a pitiful group at the point of attack.

Compared to 02 and 03 when they had actual bodies to throw at Kobe and the difference in production becomes undeniable.
Bowen and Steve Smith pushed Antonio Daniels to the bench where hes a strength and then they get Manu/Stax the following year.

Kobes production in those 3 years :
01: 33-7-7 (121 ORTG)

02: 26-5-5 (107 ORTG)
03: 32-5-4 (103 ORTG)

Kobe went from looking like peak MJ in sweeps of the Spurs, to posting Iversonian levels of efficiency in a 1-1 series split the following 2 years.
If you watch the series, the reason the Lakers had to rely more on the triangle was because they couldn't just rely on Kobe overpowering their midgets, they had actual length then. Kobe was still great, but there are levels to this.

[ceoofkobefans]

I think in 2000 they’re able to win the ring still but 2001 and 2002 Idek if the lakers make the finals. I think y’all are underestimating how much better Kobe is than Reggie and how much he mattered to them beating some of those teams in the West