Hmm, Doc MJ, I'm not completely sure we can discredit Miller's lack of all-star berths by bringing up the "lack of competition" for Ray Allen.
During Miller's prime, here are some of the guards that beat him out for the All-Star game. This is excluding the obvious Jordan, Thomas being included as obvious sort picks. Outside of them, and even Isiah in his later years, which guards were considered near locks to make the game?
91: Hersey Hawkins, Joe Dumars, Alvin Robertson.
92: Reggie Lewis, Joe Dumars, Mark Price, Michael Adams
93: Joe Dumars, Mark Price.
94: Kenny Anderson, Mookie Blaylock, B.J. Armstrong, John Starks, Mark Price.
97: Terrell Brandon, Joe Dumars.
We compare that to Allen's competition. Kidd, McGrady, and Iverson were near locks to be in the all-star game every year. So, Allen had lesser spots to compete with his contemporaries which included guys like Baron Davis, Carter at times, Jordan (lol), Marbury, Houston, Sprewell, Stackhouse, etc.
When Allen moved West to Seattle, Kobe and McGrady (a year after Allen moved to Seattle) were locks to be named to the All-Star team. Then consider his competition was Ginobili, Nash, Paul/Deron at the tail end of his Sonics career, or Parker, then I'm not completely sold on the idea that Allen had ridiculously easy competition, while implying that Miller had much more superior competition.
Overall though, all-star nominations, as you allude to aren't really a reason to rank one over another. It's dependent on era and media, and don't really prove why one player is better than another. It's just that, I'm not completely sure it was the competition that created that discrepancy.
Re: Spacing; I completely buy this argument. Reggie's impact in terms of creating for space his teammates is astronomical, and a big reason why his numbers don't indicate his true impact on the game. I was always under the belief that Reggie Miller was one of the most overrated players of our generation (depending on whom you ask in the media, it's still holds some truth); but I think that opinion became so popular that he's now become slightly underrated because his statistics don't paint the entire picture. But the question I'm struggling with is, does this propel him into being better than some certain players that had different offensive games - meaning, put the ball on the floor more, play-making, etc, while they have considerably greater defensive impact, see guys like Moncrief or Dumars.
I also take the points about Miller raising his game in the playoffs, most specifically 5 post-seasons with an average of over 25+ PPG respectively. But I think it's worth mentioning, only one of those five post season runs were when Miller actually advanced past the first round. He played 3, 4, 17, 1, 4 games in those respective post-seasons. In retrospect, Allen actually has two post-seasons of production worth over 25 PPG having advanced past the first round.
I think they're comparable as defenders, while Allen has the edge as an all rounded player in terms of rebounding, and play-making. Offensively, I think it's close enough to the point that I like Ray Allen more overall. In fact, there's not much a difference between their teams relative rank in ORTG.
Code: Select all
00 Bucks - 2nd
01 Bucks - 1st
02 Bucks - 8th
03 Bucks - 2nd (Allen was traded after 46 games however)
04 Sonics - 4th
05 Sonics - 2nd
06 Sonics - 3rd
07 Sonics - 8th
Code: Select all
90 Pacers - 7th
91 Pacers - 7th
92 Pacers - 6th
93 Pacers - 5th
94 Pacers 11th
95 Pacers - 8th
96 Pacers - 6th
97 Pacers - 15th
98 Pacers - 4th
99 Pacers - 1st
00 Pacers - 1stAnd as for his volume #'s in Seattle, I agree with the notion that I'd prefer Allen with less an on ball role, and for that sort of role, I'd prefer Miller, BUT I don't think that's the right way to look at Allen's role with those Sonics teams. Because, he had to play that role, not out of game style, but team structure.
I think the better question is, if the team structure were forced into putting one of these guys as the primary creator/initiator for the team offense, then I'd take Allen over Miller, because he's a bit more versatile in terms of putting the ball on the floor, and getting to the rim to create for himself or teammates. Now, I don't think it's a huge difference, but similar to the difference in wanting Miller over Allen in a strict off the ball sort role. That '05 season was pretty impressive by Ray, IMO. Give him some more shooters in Lewis, Ridnor, and Radman, along with hustle big men like Fortson, Evans, James, and Collison, that Sonics team won 50+ games, and took the to-be champion Spurs in the 2nd round to 6 games.
TBH, I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on, but I think Allen deserves serious consideration with Miller to the point it's a matter of preference. Perhaps comes down to valuing a slight better all round game, or greater playoff play.
