Joe Dumars or Ray Allen?

[Laimbeer]

Who would you want on your team for a career?

[MrBigShot]

Ray Allen. Better shooter, probably a better player in his prime, and a good defender. Even though Joe D was an excellent defender, Ray has some size on him, so he has a slight edge.

Not that Joe D wasn't a remarkable player though, can't go wrong with either one.

[ahonui06]

If my team needs a shooter/scorer than I'm taking Ray Allen.

If my team needs a good floor general and great perimeter defense then it's Joe Dumars.

[JordansBulls]

Dumars

[SKR]

RayRay for me.

[DocHoops]

Historically Dumars is a greater player, he achieved more.

As a GM knowing what how their careers played out, I'd take Dumars over Allen as well.

Dumars wins in more situations because of his level of play on both ends of the court. Ray is a better shooter, but barely, Dumars is a better ball handler, play maker, penetrater by a slight to moderate margin. Allen is better without the ball by a moderate margin. Dumars is a considerably better defender. Both are excellent teammates and very hard workers.

[ronnymac2]

Ray Allen was the superior player. There are situations in which Dumars is the better fit, but he's not the better basketball player. He's the superior defender (one of the best man defenders I've ever seen), but that isn't an equalizer to Ray's better offense.

[DocHoops]

Ray Allen was the superior player. There are situations in which Dumars is the better fit, but he's not the better basketball player. He's the superior defender (one of the best man defenders I've ever seen), but that isn't an equalizer to Ray's better offense.

^ I'd say Dumars was better overall on offense

He was a better pentrater, better distributor, Ray's only clear edge is in 3-pt shooting and Dumars was one of the leagues best at that when he played.

Be curious as to why your opinion differs. Also curious as to why you think offense + defense = some overall value.

[easiestplayfts]

Dumars

[ballhawk1]

Dumars

Joe Dumars

[colts18]

Easily Allen. There was never a few year period where Dumars was the best player on his team.

[Jase]

Two very, very classy professionals.

Allen gets this one in my book.

[ronnymac2]

Ray Allen was the superior player. There are situations in which Dumars is the better fit, but he's not the better basketball player. He's the superior defender (one of the best man defenders I've ever seen), but that isn't an equalizer to Ray's better offense.

^ I'd say Dumars was better overall on offense

He was a better pentrater, better distributor, Ray's only clear edge is in 3-pt shooting and Dumars was one of the leagues best at that when he played.

Be curious as to why your opinion differs. Also curious as to why you think offense + defense = some overall value.

No man. I think you need to take a closer look at the two players at their respective peaks. Allen is clearly superior on offense. It wasn't just his 3-point shooting.

You can't even say Dumars fits in with stars on title teams, because Allen did just that on a historically great team as well.

How is Dumars better in terms of overall offense?

[JustCame]

depends on the team

[DocHoops]

No man. I think you need to take a closer look at the two players at their respective peaks. Allen is clearly superior on offense. It wasn't just his 3-point shooting.

You can't even say Dumars fits in with stars on title teams, because Allen did just that on a historically great team as well.

How is Dumars better in terms of overall offense?

Well if I break down each offensive aspect:

-Dumars was undeniably a better ball handler, he ran the point when Isiah was out.
-Dumars was better at getting to the basket. That was his offensive game when he entered the league; he was a guy who broke you down off the dribble and scored inside 12 feet as much as possible.
-Dumars had a comparable mid-range game; both of these guys were deadly from 18 feet.
-Dumars was excellent away from the ball coming off screens, but Allen was even better. Only Richard Hamilton, Larry Bird and Reggie Miller compare to Allen on offense without the ball.
-Allen is a better 3-pt shooter, but not by much. Allen was born into the 3-pt era; Dumars didn't see the long line until he became a pro. Still Allen was a career .399 from 3-pt range to Dumars .382. Allen peaked at 3.3 made per game at 43%, Dumars at 2.1 per game at 43%.
-Allen is a slightly better foul shooter, but both are excellent.

It's pretty tight, but Dumars is more versatile. Allen is only a major factor if he's scoring or if you have a dominant post player or mismatch inside and you can Iso him in a two man game. Dumars can switch over and facilitate

Above all else, Dumars was unlike Allen, an elite defender and like Allen, a perfect teammate. If someone wanted to say they prefer Allen offensivley because he proved himself in a number one role more, fine, I agree. However I know that neither Allen or Dumars is going to lead me to a title as my number one guy, and Dumars can do more things to help me than Allen can. There is nothing Ray Allen can do, as a major supporting player (2nd-4th option), that Dumars can't do as well, nearly as well or better. Ray Allen wasn't going to lock down on Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson for 80% of a series.

[AgEnT50]

RayRay for me.

[ronnymac2]

Well if I break down each offensive aspect:

-Dumars was undeniably a better ball handler, he ran the point when Isiah was out.
-Dumars was better at getting to the basket. That was his offensive game when he entered the league; he was a guy who broke you down off the dribble and scored inside 12 feet as much as possible.
-Dumars had a comparable mid-range game; both of these guys were deadly from 18 feet.
-Dumars was excellent away from the ball coming off screens, but Allen was even better. Only Richard Hamilton, Larry Bird and Reggie Miller compare to Allen on offense without the ball.
-Allen is a better 3-pt shooter, but not by much. Allen was born into the 3-pt era; Dumars didn't see the long line until he became a pro. Still Allen was a career .399 from 3-pt range to Dumars .382. Allen peaked at 3.3 made per game at 43%, Dumars at 2.1 per game at 43%.
-Allen is a slightly better foul shooter, but both are excellent.

It's pretty tight, but Dumars is more versatile. Allen is only a major factor if he's scoring or if you have a dominant post player or mismatch inside and you can Iso him in a two man game. Dumars can switch over and facilitate

I agree Dumars is more versatile. He has an edge as a passer/playmaker by virtue of his ability to play more of a lead guard role (I hesitate to say point guard) than Allen could. But Allen was a low-turnover guard who was a decent passer himself. He got around four assists per game in his role as a lead scorer, which is pretty impressive for a shooting guard. He wasn't Jordan, Kobe, or Wade in that he was a 30/5 threat, but he was in pretty damn good passing the ball while being a great scorer.

Allen's scoring advantage should not be minimized here. His advantage as a 3-point shooter is much larger when you consider Allen took way more 3-pointers, saw more defensive attention over the course of his career, and shot better from 3-point range over the course of his career. Dumars had a couple of peak 3-point shooting seasons at the tail-end of his career (when he was in a support role averaging less than 15 ppg) that compare to Allen's best. However, Allen can match those seasons by percentage, at a higher volume of 3's and at a VASTLY higher amount of ppg and defensive attention. That counts for something.

Allen bests Dumars' best seasons in terms of scoring volume, and he beats him in efficiency in those seasons as well (going by true shooting percentage). Peak individual offensive rating, combined with usage, at least indicate that Allen was the superior offensive player at his peak as well (more efficient while taking on more responsibility).

I just don't see an argument for Joe Dumars being better than Ray Allen offensively. Allen has a clear edge here. Just because Dumars can play more of a lead guard role doesn't mean he is superior as an offensive player. Dumars never showed that he could replicate what Allen did as an offensive player.

Above all else, Dumars was unlike Allen, an elite defender and like Allen, a perfect teammate. If someone wanted to say they prefer Allen offensivley because he proved himself in a number one role more, fine, I agree. However I know that neither Allen or Dumars is going to lead me to a title as my number one guy, and Dumars can do more things to help me than Allen can. There is nothing Ray Allen can do, as a major supporting player (2nd-4th option), that Dumars can't do as well, nearly as well or better. Ray Allen wasn't going to lock down on Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson for 80% of a series.

Again, I don't disagree that Dumars is the better choice in certain contexts. As a number two option on a traditionally built team, I'd much rather have Ray Allen. The Bad Boys weren't traditionally built, so it muddies things a bit in our comparison, but I'd rather have peak Ray Allen next to a true number one guy than a peak Joe Dumars.

[DocHoops]

I agree Dumars is more versatile. He has an edge as a passer/playmaker by virtue of his ability to play more of a lead guard role (I hesitate to say point guard) than Allen could.

No reason to hesitate. He played about 20 minutes per game as the Pistons point guard throughout most of his career. He was Isiah's backup and would even play PG while Zeke was in when the Pistons were running Isiah off screens as a scorer. Later in his career he split time with Grant Hill as the teams offensive PG while Lindsay Hunter guarded the opposing teams one position.

But Allen was a low-turnover guard who was a decent passer himself. He got around four assists per game in his role as a lead scorer, which is pretty impressive for a shooting guard. He wasn't Jordan, Kobe, or Wade in that he was a 30/5 threat, but he was in pretty damn good passing the ball while being a great scorer.

Agreed. Where he differ is that I think the margin between Dumars and Allen as play makers / ball handler is greater than the margin between their scoring ability.

Allen's scoring advantage should not be minimized here.

It's a minimal advantage, so I disagree.

His advantage as a 3-point shooter is much larger when you consider Allen took way more 3-pointers, saw more defensive attention over the course of his career, and shot better from 3-point range over the course of his career.

And it can be put into context when you consider that Ray Allen never had to play without a thee-point line and Joe Dumars played a grand total of on season in the first 22 years of his life with a three-point line. Allen is playing in an era when teams and players take more threes than at any other point in history. Dumars career covered the opposite end of that spectrum.

Allen bests Dumars' best seasons in terms of scoring volume, and he beats him in efficiency in those seasons as well (going by true shooting percentage). Peak individual offensive rating, combined with usage, at least indicate that Allen was the superior offensive player at his peak as well (more efficient while taking on more responsibility).

Let me explain why I shake my head when I read this. Which stat measures the difference in terms of energy expended at the defensive end and it's impact on the players offense? How about average plays designed for each player per game? How does that break down? Do you see my point. These two players were in totally different situations, those stats don't take into account at all more than half of what makes those numbers happen.

I just don't see an argument for Joe Dumars being better than Ray Allen offensively.

Than you haven't been listening. You don't have to agree with my conclusion, but what i am telling you should make it pretty clear why I think they are pretty even on the offensive end.

Allen has a clear edge here. Just because Dumars can play more of a lead guard role doesn't mean he is superior as an offensive player.

No but it means

Dumars never showed that he could replicate what Allen did as an offensive player.

Never got the chance to. He spent one season as the teams number one option the way Allen was in Seattle. Here's how that season went compared to Allen's best two.

Dumars 1992-93 - 24 ppg 4 apg - 47/38/86
Allen 2005-06 - 25 ppg 4 apg - 45/41/90
Allen 2006-07 - 26 ppg 4 apg 44/37/90

I can't pretend like that's some huge chasm. Dumars was a near 30ppg scorer in college, his situation as a pro, going to the Pistons forced him to adapt. His adaptability to any situation is what makes him so valuable to me.

Again, I don't disagree that Dumars is the better choice in certain contexts. As a number two option on a traditionally built team, I'd much rather have Ray Allen. The Bad Boys weren't traditionally built, so it muddies things a bit in our comparison, but I'd rather have peak Ray Allen next to a true number one guy than a peak Joe Dumars.

But you have no idea what pea Ray Allen would do next to a number one guy. He certainly wouldn't be as good of a defender as Joe. Let's look at historically great #2 options or even 1A/1B sidekicks: Havlicek, Pippen, McHale, Kobe, Worthy, Frazier, West, Jim Pollard...All good defenders, most of them great. Dumars fits right in with that group (though some of those guys distinguished themselves as Superstars earlier or later in their career. Allen is close too, but he's too one-dimensional as a player for my liking as a cornerstone on my team.

[ronnymac2]

The difference between their scoring ability is a significant feather in Ray's cap here.

Your main arguments now center around the fact that Dumars didn't play in an era with 3-pointers so en vogue and that Dumars expended more energy on defense, which impacted his offense.

Regarding the 3's: Dumars doesn't get a pass here. In his greatest scoring season (essentially in his prime), he never distinguished himself above his peers as a 3-point shooter the way Allen did. It's way too much of a stretch to reasonably assume that Dumars would benefit so much in this era from the 3-point shot that he'd somehow close the scoring gap between himself and Allen. He never hit Allen's percentages when he faced a similar amount of defensive attention (or scored as much in volume). You can reasonably give a Larry Bird credit for his 3-point shooting translating into this era because of his volume and the fact that he hit 3's at a high clip with defenses focusing in on him. You can't do the same for Dumars.

Regarding energy required: You correctly state Dumars was rarely in Ray's situation in terms of having to carry the scoring load. OK, so he never really proved he could do it then, right? Joe's one season doesn't really stack up to Ray's peak seasons (nevermind the consistency) in terms of scoring (volume AND efficiency). I don't think you can just bestow Dumars that type of ability. That's difficult to do, man.

Don't care about college stats. I believe Rodman averaged 25 ppg at his college....

Dumars likely did expend more energy on the defensive end; he was the better defensive player after all. But what does that mean? Does that mean that if he gave up using energy on defense, he'd become a better offensive player than peak Allen? How can anybody possibly know that? If he didn't use energy on defense, then wouldn't he - in your mind, at least- simply turn into a one-dimensional player similar to peak Ray Allen?

At least with Ray, we saw a concrete example of how Ray responds when put into a situation similar to Joe's. In 2008, he was put onto a team where he didn't have to carry the scoring load. He ends up playing very good defense. In two NBA Finals, he does a respectable job as the primary defender on Kobe Bryant. Dumars was the primary defender on Michael Jordan when the Bad Boys would do a decent job of limiting MJ. Now, peak MJ>>>old Kobe, and Joe's defense was still better than '08-'10 Allen's, but in a vacuum, an older Allen did a respectable job on an all-time great post-season scorer. We saw that. It was reality.

It's too much of a stretch to assume Dumars could replicate what Allen could do in Allen's role as a primary option. It's actually less of a stretch to assume that Allen could somewhat replicate what Dumars brought to the table as an ultimate support/glue player (though I probably wouldn't actually say that ). That makes Allen better.

Never mind how Allen did in the post-season in a couple of runs as a primary option pre-Boston. Dumars never sniffed Allen's individual post-season success when Dumars was his team's primary option (he won a finals MVP on a team that didn't have such a defined primary option as most champs). Allen had some awesome runs individually; Dumars, not so much.

[ronnymac2]

BTW, my bad for the late response. I'm enjoying the thread though.