celtics543 wrote:Where did Vince lead a team as the clear cut number 1 option? It certainly wasn't the finals.
And I can't believe I'm doing this but I need to defend Ray Allen. If you're judging him on his Heat career then you missed everything. Guy was an assassin in Seattle and Milwaukee, then played a huge role in Boston's run from 2008-2012. The Heat portion of his career was the cherry on the sundae. He's better than Vince, peaked higher.
Neither did Ray Allen lead his team to NBA Finals as clear cut number 1.
I don't care what Ray Allen did as 3rd wheel on Boston Celtics or riding the bench at Miami Heat, it doesn't hold as much weight compared to when he actually was "The Guy" at Sonics & Bucks. And yes, he was a fantastic player.
However, Vince actually peaked higher and was clearly the best player between them until 2007 when Ray Allen joined Celtics for taking a reduced role.
Leslie Forman wrote:
Drygon wrote:Vince was one of NBA's best offensive player who actually could lead his team as clear-cut #1 option.
And lead them to…what, exactly? 40-something wins and getting bounced in the weak East every year even though he had prime Jason Kidd and Richard Jefferson?
This guy never even won 50 games in the sorry ass East until he went to Orlando and was just a sidekick. He's a career loser with volume stats and awful intangibles. Ok, maybe that's harsh, he's not Ricky Davis or something. But there's a reason guys like Manu and Reggie were main guys on contenders even though they didn't score as much, while Vince just mired in relative mediocrity for his entire prime.
Basketball is a team sport. Vince wasted his prime on 2 dysfunctional franchises (Raptors & Nets) and never had a supporting cast good enough for being a title contender. Even at New Jersey Nets, the roster was awful outside Vince/Kidd/RJ (who only had 1 healthy season together btw).
The "winning 50 games" is arbitrary cutoff. Vince had seasons where his teams were approximately close to reaching it.
Duke4life831 wrote:Where did he lead his team as a clear cut #1? Just 1 time out of the 1st round of the playoffs? That is the thing that puts him over Manu? In 6.5 seasons he missed the playoffs half the time and only got out of the 1st round once? Unless you're also including his time with the Nets where they never got out of the 2nd round and that offense was still being run by Kidd.
Manu was the far more versatile player. He was the better shooter, far superior facilitator, much more efficient scorer, and a better defender. Practically all advanced metrics that aren't volume-related (WS and VORP) give Manu the sizable advantage. Vince was the far more popular player, but Manu without a doubt had a bigger impact on winning.
Vince was clearly the driving force on New Jersey Nets. The Nets had a 10-16 record with 11 games losing streak until Vince willed them to 2005 playoffs. Post-microfracture Jason Kidd wasn't the same player he used to be.
It's easy to shine against the opposing team's bench players. Vince's stats would certainly look even better. As for winning, it's pretty to do with their respective supporting cast rather than individual play.