RealGM

How many titles do they win?

Lol. The answer is 0.

Kobe was on a whole different level than Reggie both offensively and defensively.

Why is Reggie being so hyped up lately?

Probably one in 2000, but anything else is a reach.

Stalwart wrote:Lol. The answer is 0.

Kobe was on a whole different level than Reggie both offensively and defensively.

Why is Reggie being so hyped up lately?

Reggie was better than Kobe in 2000.

70sFan wrote:

Stalwart wrote:Lol. The answer is 0.

Kobe was on a whole different level than Reggie both offensively and defensively.

Why is Reggie being so hyped up lately?

Reggie was better than Kobe in 2000.

I would disagree. He was a more consistent scorer, by a small margin, but Kobe was the better everything else. He was the better rebounder, passer, defender, playmaker while also providing great scoring as well.

By 2001 Kobe was already better than the best versions of Reggie.

Stalwart wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Stalwart wrote:Lol. The answer is 0.

Kobe was on a whole different level than Reggie both offensively and defensively.

Why is Reggie being so hyped up lately?

Reggie was better than Kobe in 2000.

I would disagree. He was a more consistent scorer, by a small margin, but Kobe was the better everything else. He was the better rebounder, passer, defender, playmaker while also providing great scoring as well.

By 2001 Kobe was already better than the best versions of Reggie.

No, scoring gap was significant. So was the overall offensive gap.

70sFan wrote:

Stalwart wrote:Lol. The answer is 0.

Kobe was on a whole different level than Reggie both offensively and defensively.

Why is Reggie being so hyped up lately?

Reggie was better than Kobe in 2000.

2000 sees the close series with the Blazers in which Kobe was basically neutral on court with a mediocre offensive performance. I know they went to the setting game five versus the Kings in that series, as never received any sort of trouble not series were dominant in their home games. Kobe’s on-ball defense was much better Han Reggie’s so there has to be accounting for that.

I see the Lakers winning a title with Prime Miller, but it’s not guaranteed in any way of course.

2001 is interesting, as I don’t see any team beating the Lakers with Prime Reggie, but they also wouldn’t be as good as they were with Kobe. I see a title here.

2002 vs. the Spurs would be interesting because even though Kobe’s efficiency was underwhelming, his ability to create helped them dominate that series. Kobe struggled against the Kings, and so maybe they win that series easier with Miller. Tough to say.

2003 nothing changes

2004 not sure they get to the finals though I think they’d do better vs. the Pistons.

I see 2 maybe 3 titles with Miller.

Prime Reggie seems clearly better to me than 00-05 Kobe. The Lakers lose something on defense but their offense benefits a lot from Reggie being better playing off ball, better spacing, better scoring, more complementary to Shaq.

The reason that Kobe is better than Reggie, the reason that Kobe is borderline top 10 all time and Reggie is in the 30s all time, is because of what Kobe did from 06-10. Reggie Miller could not have done that stuff by any means. But that doesn't mean that pre-prime Kobe was better than prime Reggie. And prime Reggie was really, really, really good.

That said, it's still pretty unlikely that they win more than 3 titles. It's really hard to do 4 titles in 5 or 6 years. Doesn't even matter how good the team is.

Dooley wrote:Prime Reggie seems clearly better to me than 00-05 Kobe. The Lakers lose something on defense but their offense benefits a lot from Reggie being better playing off ball, better spacing, better scoring, more complementary to Shaq.

The reason that Kobe is better than Reggie, the reason that Kobe is borderline top 10 all time and Reggie is in the 30s all time, is because of what Kobe did from 06-10. Reggie Miller could not have done that stuff by any means. But that doesn't mean that pre-prime Kobe was better than prime Reggie. And prime Reggie was really, really, really good.

That said, it's still pretty unlikely that they win more than 3 titles. It's really hard to do 4 titles in 5 or 6 years. Doesn't even matter how good the team is.

To be fair, I don't think Reggie ever approached 2001 playoffs Kobe level.

70sFan wrote:Probably one in 2000, but anything else is a reach.

Who do they lose to in 2001?

rand wrote:

70sFan wrote:Probably one in 2000, but anything else is a reach.

Who do they lose to in 2001?

I don't know, but Kobe was massive in that season. I don't think they'd dominate Spurs without him for example.

70sFan wrote:

Dooley wrote:Prime Reggie seems clearly better to me than 00-05 Kobe. The Lakers lose something on defense but their offense benefits a lot from Reggie being better playing off ball, better spacing, better scoring, more complementary to Shaq.

The reason that Kobe is better than Reggie, the reason that Kobe is borderline top 10 all time and Reggie is in the 30s all time, is because of what Kobe did from 06-10. Reggie Miller could not have done that stuff by any means. But that doesn't mean that pre-prime Kobe was better than prime Reggie. And prime Reggie was really, really, really good.

That said, it's still pretty unlikely that they win more than 3 titles. It's really hard to do 4 titles in 5 or 6 years. Doesn't even matter how good the team is.

To be fair, I don't think Reggie ever approached 2001 playoffs Kobe level.

Yeahhhhhh I mean, Kobe was great in 01 by all means. Don't get me wrong, Kobe was great on those teams in general and an integral part of why they won.

But even in 01 - maybe Reggie doesn't have those blockbuster 40 point games but I think he's still going to contribute a ton. Plus, the 01 team completely whomped on all their opponents. So maybe the Spurs or Kings don't get swept but I'm not sure I buy that it's enough of a difference for the Lakers to lose any of their series.

Tough call. I think Reggie would have been more valuable in the Finals than Kobe, because Bryant didn't really perform well in the Finals during any of those seasons except arguably 2002. But he was very good prior to the Finals in many of them, and he added a level of playmaking and on-ball dynamism which in no way did Miller ever bring. Reggie was a pretty strong mid-20s scorer on wicked efficiency and hella low turnovers. He had some gravity with the defense because of his movement and his range. He had a couple series in that 25-31 ppg range when he really got going.

I'm just not sure that putting him in Kobe's place gives LA enough on-ball value. Like, leaving the ball with Fisher and their SFs just doesn't sit well and creates a really roomy space to attack the POA ball-handler aggressively and disrupt the entire offense. Kobe was the big ball handler who really helped enable the triangle, even when he wasn't shooting too well. You get a bit more consistency from Miller as a scorer, for sure, and much more efficiency. Kobe's rebounding is probably replaceable on those teams, but that's a major trade-off in how the wheels of their offense works. Miller isn't really a strong fit for the triangle, and Phil was poorly adaptable outside of his given offensive system. He and Tex made that their careers' work, after all, as opposed to flexible adaptation to roster components.

There's lots of interesting discussion of Reggie's value in this thread, and of Kobe's pros and cons, to be sure. I think, however, that the Lakers were better as they were than with Reggie. I am given to wonder if Reggie's steadier presence might have been better for attacking Sacramento in 2000, and same same versus Portland, but it's hard to tell.

I like Reggie, and his detractors often overcriticize him because he sort of fits the stylistic/aesthetic profile of a really old-school 2-guard, but there is the reality of the triangle and LA's ball handlers to consider.

tsherkin wrote:Tough call. I think Reggie would have been more valuable in the Finals than Kobe, because Bryant didn't really perform well in the Finals during any of those seasons except arguably 2002. But he was very good prior to the Finals in many of them, and he added a level of playmaking and on-ball dynamism which in no way did Miller ever bring. Reggie was a pretty strong mid-20s scorer on wicked efficiency and hella low turnovers. He had some gravity with the defense because of his movement and his range. He had a couple series in that 25-31 ppg range when he really got going.

I think its inaccurate to say Kobe didn't perform well in those series. Especially when you consider defense. In 2000 Kobe actually held Reggie Miller to 1/16 shooting in game 1. 6%. Completely and totally shut him down.



Even though Shaq dominated offensively Kobe's defensive was arguably more impactful. Kobe then spends the rest of the series battling through injury. He still wins them game 4 when Shaq fouls out.

Kobe played great in both 2001 and 2002. Miller wouldn't match it. In 2004 Kobe struggled against the Pistons but so did Reggie that year. The Pistons were an all time great defensive team. Kobe still won game 2 for them.

I'm just not sure that putting him in Kobe's place gives LA enough on-ball value. Like, leaving the ball with Fisher and their SFs just doesn't sit well and creates a really roomy space to attack the POA ball-handler aggressively and disrupt the entire offense. Kobe was the big ball handler who really helped enable the triangle, even when he wasn't shooting too well. You get a bit more consistency from Miller as a scorer, for sure, and much more efficiency. Kobe's rebounding is probably replaceable on those teams, but that's a major trade-off in how the wheels of their offense works. Miller isn't really a strong fit for the triangle, and Phil was poorly adaptable outside of his given offensive system. He and Tex made that their careers' work, after all, as opposed to flexible adaptation to roster components.

The thing you have to keep in mind about Reggie's scoring is that he played in a system based around finding him an open shot. In Indiana everyone worked together to create shots for Reggie. So of course Reggie is going to have a higher efficiency and less turnovers. However, Kobe's role on the Lakers was to create his own shots and shots for others. Thats an enormous responsibility and a much bigger role than what Reggie was capable of.

If Reggie was forced to be the playmaker for himself and others as well as the lead defender you'd see his numbers plummet.

I could hypothetically envision a situation where Reggie and Shaq form a successful duo but it would require a different team makeup and different playstyle. Reggie would have to play a traditional #2 or perhaps even a role player. Instead of getting 20-25pts on wicked efficiency he'd get 18-20pts with less efficiency. The team would also require a more capable point guard to play next to him to handle the playmaking. The PG and SF would need to be more versatile defenders than what Kobe & Shaq had.

Kobe brought so much more to the table than Reggie did Im kinda surprised you guys don't see this.

Stalwart wrote:Kobe played great in both 2001 and 2002. Miller wouldn't match it. In 2004 Kobe struggled against the Pistons but so did Reggie that year. The Pistons were an all time great defensive team. Kobe still won game 2 for them.

You do realize we are comparing prime Miller, not 38 year old Miller, in this comparison?

I'm not sure why 38 year old Miller or what he did in 2004 is relevant to this discussion? Unless you believe 2004 Reggie Miller is Prime Miller.

I'm just not sure that putting him in Kobe's place gives LA enough on-ball value. Like, leaving the ball with Fisher and their SFs just doesn't sit well and creates a really roomy space to attack the POA ball-handler aggressively and disrupt the entire offense. Kobe was the big ball handler who really helped enable the triangle, even when he wasn't shooting too well. You get a bit more consistency from Miller as a scorer, for sure, and much more efficiency. Kobe's rebounding is probably replaceable on those teams, but that's a major trade-off in how the wheels of their offense works. Miller isn't really a strong fit for the triangle, and Phil was poorly adaptable outside of his given offensive system. He and Tex made that their careers' work, after all, as opposed to flexible adaptation to roster components.

The thing you have to keep in mind about Reggie's scoring is that he played in a system based around finding him an open shot. In Indiana everyone worked together to create shots for Reggie. So of course Reggie is going to have a higher efficiency and less turnovers. However, Kobe's role on the Lakers was to create his own shots and shots for others. Thats an enormous responsibility and a much bigger role than what Reggie was capable of.

If Reggie was forced to be the playmaker for himself and others as well as the lead defender you'd see his numbers plummet.

I could hypothetically envision a situation where Reggie and Shaq form a successful duo but it would require a different team makeup and different playstyle. Reggie would have to play a traditional #2 or perhaps even a role player. Instead of getting 20-25pts on wicked efficiency he'd get 18-20pts with less efficiency. The team would also require a more capable point guard to play next to him to handle the playmaking. The PG and SF would need to be more versatile defenders than what Kobe & Shaq had.

Kobe brought so much more to the table than Reggie did Im kinda surprised you guys don't see this.[/quote]

Most people see this, but basketball isn't always a "Varied skillset > Maximized singular skillsets".

Reggie Miller was significantly better at scoring, moving off ball and shooting than Kobe Bryant was during the years chosen. Prime Miller was spectacular in the post-season from 92-95 and led good offenses with relatively limited offensive casts during this period.

It shouldn't be surprising that pairing with another gravity gargantuan in Shaquille O'Neal leads to excellent results.

Unfortunately, its impossible to tell how many rings they end up with. Perhaps Shaq and Miller mesh seamlessly on and off the court where Shaq's off-court issues never grow and affect his play as they did with Kobe during the end of the chosen stretch and we see a more focused Shaq for longer. It's completely possible the team does struggle with replacing Kobe's playmaking and defense and only ends up with 1 or 2 championships.

I think 1 is almost a given except for injuries, 2 is very likely, 3 is probably around 50% with 4 and 5 titles more likely with Miller compared to Kobe [In part because 2005 includes the Miller/Shaq duo and didn't include Kobe/Shaq as Shaq was forced to leave].

Colbinii wrote:You do realize we are comparing prime Miller, not 38 year old Miller, in this comparison?

I'm not sure why 38 year old Miller or what he did in 2004 is relevant to this discussion? Unless you believe 2004 Reggie Miller is Prime Miller.

Im just making the point that the Pistons were a great defensive team.

Most people see this, but basketball isn't always a "Varied skillset > Maximized singular skillsets".

Reggie Miller was significantly better at scoring,

moving off ball and shooting than Kobe Bryant was during the years chosen. Prime Miller was spectacular in the post-season from 92-95 and led good offenses with relatively limited offensive casts during this period.

It shouldn't be surprising that pairing with another gravity gargantuan in Shaquille O'Neal leads to excellent results.

Unfortunately, its impossible to tell how many rings they end up with. Perhaps Shaq and Miller mesh seamlessly on and off the court where Shaq's off-court issues never grow and affect his play as they did with Kobe during the end of the chosen stretch and we see a more focused Shaq for longer. It's completely possible the team does struggle with replacing Kobe's playmaking and defense and only ends up with 1 or 2 championships.

I think 1 is almost a given except for injuries, 2 is very likely, 3 is probably around 50% with 4 and 5 titles more likely with Miller compared to Kobe [In part because 2005 includes the Miller/Shaq duo and didn't include Kobe/Shaq as Shaq was forced to leave].

This is just an extension of the widespread presumption that anybody + Shaq = Championship. Thats just a common misperception. Shaq had a very talented cast from 1996-99 and got swept every year by good teams. There is a reason Shaq is called the most dominant and not the best. The reason is because as dominant as Shaq is he's also limited to a degree. There are just too many aspects to the game that Shaq can't do and his individual dominance can't make up for. Two of those things are playmaking and perimeter defense. Thats where he needs an all time great SG to provide that. Miller can't provide that the way Penny, Kobe, and Wade did.

Millers "efficiency" and off the ball movement doesn't get them past Portland or Sacramento in 2002. They also have a 50/50 battle with San Antonio in 2001 rather than the historic sweep that it was.

Again, Shaq and Miller could be successful together but it would require a conpletely different roster and set up than the Shaq & Kobe Lakers had. You can't just plug in Reggie in place of Kobe and get the same results.

Stalwart wrote:
I think its inaccurate to say Kobe didn't perform well in those series. Especially when you consider defense. In 2000 Kobe actually held Reggie Miller to 1/16 shooting in game 1. 6%. Completely and totally shut him down.

Yes, that's fair. I was looking more at his acutely weak scoring specifically.

The thing you have to keep in mind about Reggie's scoring is that he played in a system based around finding him an open shot. In Indiana everyone worked together to create shots for Reggie. So of course Reggie is going to have a higher efficiency and less turnovers. However, Kobe's role on the Lakers was to create his own shots and shots for others. Thats an enormous responsibility and a much bigger role than what Reggie was capable of.

Yes, that's fair. Of course, his off-ball movement was predicated on simple screens and great personal awareness of when and how to move. That sort of player often finds a way to be useful, but of course, real success will come from a team that really leverages his skills. Reggie was good at drawing fouls and was a noticeably better jump shooter than Kobe, which helped drive his efficiency. But that isn't the total breadth of offensive value, which is why I lamented his lack of major on-ball pressure or playmaking by comparison.

Kobe brought so much more to the table than Reggie did Im kinda surprised you guys don't see this.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're talking about and why you quoted me about this. You literally quoted a passage of me questioning Reggie's on-ball relevance and how that would potentially undermine the Lakers offense and then started rambling about Reggie's scoring after I remarked that I don't think they'd have done as well with Reggie versus with Kobe...

Stalwart wrote:

Colbinii wrote:You do realize we are comparing prime Miller, not 38 year old Miller, in this comparison?

I'm not sure why 38 year old Miller or what he did in 2004 is relevant to this discussion? Unless you believe 2004 Reggie Miller is Prime Miller.

Im just making the point that the Pistons were a great defensive team.

I dont think pointing to the Pistons and saying "Look what they did to 38 year old Reggie Miller" is an indictment the Pistons were good defensively. They certainly were an all-time great defensive team, but that didn't prevent Prime Miller lifting the 1993 Pacers to an efficient offense against the 1993 Knicks [Also a dominant defensive].

In fact, Miller has a history of leading resilient offenses in the post-season against defensive juggernauts.

Most people see this, but basketball isn't always a "Varied skillset > Maximized singular skillsets".

Reggie Miller was significantly better at scoring,

What?

Miller from 1992-1995 was more efficient and effective than Kobe was offensively over the same period and led better post-season offenses due to his resiliency in the post-season.

It's closer to 4 than 2 honestly.

2000, Kobe wasn't even a top 50 player yet and prime Reggie was much better. 2001 the team was indestructible. 2002, Kobe had a medicore playoffs with 20.5 PER on .511 TS% and a negative on/off. 2003 they lose to the Spurs no matter what. 2004 Lakers had a superteam that might have lost in the West playoffs, but also would have had a lot better chance in the Finals where Kobe completely sunk them with arguably the worst series of his entire career. I'd say something like:

2000: 90%
2001: 99%
2002: 95%
2003: 3%
2004: 23%

tsherkin wrote:Honestly, I'm not sure what you're talking about and why you quoted me about this

My apologies. Won't happen again.