RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #47 (Ray Allen)

[Outside]

This is a tough choice. The question is whether Reed has enough to overcome Iverson's longevity advantage, and on balance, I think he does.

Iverson has a substantial RS longevity advantage -- 914 games and 37K minutes compared to 650 games and 23K minutes for Reed. But they are closer in the PS -- 71 games and 3,203 minutes for Iverson compared to 78 games and 2,641 minutes for Reed. The RS longevity is a clear plus for Iverson, but I value the PS more, so Reed helps himself there.

Iverson's efficiency hurts him -- 51.8 RS TS%, 48.9 PS TS%. For a guy whose reputation is based primarily on offense, that's not good. I do give him a bit of a break because he was the sole decent offensive option much of the time.

Reed is only slightly better -- 52.3 RS TS% and 51.1 PS TS%. Considering that post players typically have higher shooting percentages, that's almost a negative for Reed.

Iverson's basic RS stats -- 26.7 PPG, 6.2 APG, 3.7 RPG, 2.2 STL, 3.6 TOV
Reed's basic RS stats -- 18.7 PPG, 12.9 RPG, 1.8 APG (turnovers, steals, blocks not available)

Iverson's basic PS stats -- 29.7 PPG, 6.0 APG, 3.8 RPG, 2.1 STL, 3.1 TOV
Reed's basic PS stats -- 17.4 PPG, 10.3 RPG, 1.9 APG

Iverson's scoring and assists are very good, and he elevated his production in the playoffs, though not his efficiency.

Reed's scoring is good, but not great, though it might have been better had he not spent most of his career with other capable scorers.

Reed was a capable defender, but he was known more as an offensive player. Iverson wasn't great at defense -- his size hurt him -- but he had good hands, long arms, and great anticipation, and his steals numbers are very good. I give the advantage to Reed here, but not by a huge margin.

In the intangibles area, Reed was "The Captain," well-respected and known as a leader. Iverson led in a different way, but he was a prickly sort that often clashed with his coaches, was habitually late to practice, and that type of thing. Another advantage to Reed.

But on balance, I don't see where Reed has enough to overcome Iverson. Beside the advantage in longevity, Iverson was an excellent scorer and very good at assists for a guy who scored so much. His efficiency wasn't great, but neither was Reed's. Reed wins in the intangibles department, but that's not near enough.

Runoff vote: Iverson

[trex_8063]

I was going to vote Ray Allen 1st, with him having 2 2nd place votes as well any chance that can put him in the run-off since the number of votes for Reed and Iverson are so brutal? I suspect he would be a bigger contender to win than the divisive Iverson. My 2nd vote was going to be Manu

If not my vote is for Reed, he has longevity concerns but a very strong peak with top level non boxscore impact (defense/spacing) and his boxscore was still great including leading league in WS at one point

As the vote totals were skimpy enough to have reservations about the result, and you're coming in just 34 minutes after I made the post announcing runoff, I'll allow the inclusion of Ray Allen.

That would technically put him ahead of Allen Iverson (as Ray Ray had TWO 2ndary votes to Iverson's one), but I don't feel it would be fair to backtrack and remove Iverson after I'd already announced him as part of the runoff. So it is now a 3-way runoff: Reed/Iverson/Allen....

Willis Reed - 2 (dhsilv2, Clyde Frazier)
Ray Allen - 2 (LABird, Dr Positivity)
Allen Iverson - 1 (Winsome Gerbil)

If you're not listed here, please specify your ONE pick among these three and reasons why.
And please let this be a lesson to make every effort to not leave it to the last minute to get your votes in.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Dr Positivity]

This is a tough choice. The question is whether Reed has enough to overcome Iverson's longevity advantage, and on balance, I think he does.

Iverson has a substantial RS longevity advantage -- 914 games and 37K minutes compared to 650 games and 23K minutes for Reed. But they are closer in the PS -- 71 games and 3,203 minutes for Iverson compared to 78 games and 2,641 minutes for Reed. The RS longevity is a clear plus for Iverson, but I value the PS more, so Reed helps himself there.

Iverson's efficiency hurts him -- 51.8 RS TS%, 48.9 PS TS%. For a guy whose reputation is based primarily on offense, that's not good. I do give him a bit of a break because he was the sole decent offensive option much of the time.

Reed is only slightly better -- 52.3 RS TS% and 51.1 PS TS%. Considering that post players typically have higher shooting percentages, that's almost a negative for Reed.

Iverson's basic RS stats -- 26.7 PPG, 6.2 APG, 3.7 RPG, 2.2 STL, 3.6 TOV
Reed's basic RS stats -- 18.7 PPG, 12.9 RPG, 1.8 APG (turnovers, steals, blocks not available)

Iverson's basic PS stats -- 29.7 PPG, 6.0 APG, 3.8 RPG, 2.1 STL, 3.1 TOV
Reed's basic PS stats -- 17.4 PPG, 10.3 RPG, 1.9 APG

Iverson's scoring and assists are very good, and he elevated his production in the playoffs, though not his efficiency.

Reed's scoring is good, but not great, though it might have been better had he not spent most of his career with other capable scorers.

Reed was a capable defender, but he was known more as an offensive player. Iverson wasn't great at defense -- his size hurt him -- but he had good hands, long arms, and great anticipation, and his steals numbers are very good. I give the advantage to Reed here, but not by a huge margin.

In the intangibles area, Reed was "The Captain," well-respected and known as a leader. Iverson led in a different way, but he was a prickly sort that often clashed with his coaches, was habitually late to practice, and that type of thing. Another advantage to Reed.

But on balance, I don't see where Reed has enough to overcome Iverson. Beside the advantage in longevity, Iverson was an excellent scorer and very good at assists for a guy who scored so much. His efficiency wasn't great, but neither was Reed's. Reed wins in the intangibles department, but that's not near enough.

Runoff vote: Iverson

Just quoting you to make sure you know the update about Ray Allen's availability

[Winsome Gerbil]

Ray Allen mentions at this stage are truly mystifying to me.

Ray Allen > Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkins, Russell Westbrook, Alex English, Adrian Dantley, not to mention a host of bigs?

Dominique Wilkins 7x All NBA (1/4/2), .945 MVP Shares, career 24.8pt scorer, 21.6PER
Ray Allen: 2x All NBA (0/1/1), .038 MVP Shares, career 18.9pt scorer, 18.6PER
Mitch Richmond: 5x All NBA (0/3/2), .009 MVP Shares, career 21.0pt scorer, 17.6PER

How's the guy in the middle there get tagged? I hope nobody is under any delusion that if the Celtics had added late prime Mitch Richmond to the team with KG, Pierce and the gang instead of late prime Ray Allen that they wouldn't have been just as good, if not better given that Richmond was the stronger defender. Joe Dumars could have done the trick too.

I was rather disappointed by Richmond time and time again over his career. I would absolutely go with Ray Allen over him.

5 VORP seasons equal or better than Mitch's best. 8 equal or better than Mitch's 2nd best. 5 WS 10+ seasons vs 1. 8 PER seasons to 2. 25 career VORP for richmond vs 58.1 for Allen. 79.3 WS for Richmond vs 145.1 for Allen. By every stat we have Allen peaked higher, peaked longer, and had a significantly better career. But Richmond was a volume scorer in an era where 25 a game even on a bad team got you a lot of all nba considerations.

Wilkins, English and Dantley are better arguments that Richmond for me. I'm not sure Richmond will get much consideration on this project, and if so it'll be a while for me.

Wilkins English and Dantley SHOULD be better arguments than Richmond.

And they also should be better arguments than Ray Allen.

The point is not that Mitch Richmond is a Top 50 player, the point is that neither is Ray Allen. In fact Ray Allen WAS Mitch Richmond until he got lucky enough to get traded to go run for bagels in Boston, then ran away to go do the same for Bron. Largely the same character. Begins career as part of a three-headed moderately successful monster in Milwaukee, just as Mitch did in Golden State. Then gets traded off to an unsuccessful stint as not-quite-good-enough-to-be franchise player on a West Coast team. Makes the playoffs once on his own. And along the way these are his pace-adjusted stats compared to Richmond's:

Per 100 Possessions
Allen 28.0pts (.452 .400 .894) 6.0reb 5.0ast 1.7stl 0.3blk 3.1TO
Mitch 29.6pts (.455 .388 .850) 5.5reb 4.9ast 1.7ast 0.3blk 3.7TO

So yeah, huge gap between those two players and all that. If Mitch was a "volume shooter" than so was Ray. One is more recent and spammed more threes. The other played better defense. About it statistically.

And NEITHER of them were worthy of picking up the sweaty smelly jock of the MVP caliber guards and wings still remaining. Ray Allen is a candidate for the 60th spot. Maybe 65. He's completely out of place as a Top 50 candidate. He'd get his ass kicked by any true Top 50 player, and so would his team.

This whole exercise is rendered moot if all we're going to do is go right down the list of all time WS without any further thought put into it. I already know what that list says, and I can see where it does well and where it fails. WS don't exist. They are a made up number. They will tell you Vince Carter is better than Dwayne Wade or Julius Erving too.

[dhsilv2]

Ray Allen mentions at this stage are truly mystifying to me.

Ray Allen > Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkins, Russell Westbrook, Alex English, Adrian Dantley, not to mention a host of bigs?

Dominique Wilkins 7x All NBA (1/4/2), .945 MVP Shares, career 24.8pt scorer, 21.6PER
Ray Allen: 2x All NBA (0/1/1), .038 MVP Shares, career 18.9pt scorer, 18.6PER
Mitch Richmond: 5x All NBA (0/3/2), .009 MVP Shares, career 21.0pt scorer, 17.6PER

How's the guy in the middle there get tagged? I hope nobody is under any delusion that if the Celtics had added late prime Mitch Richmond to the team with KG, Pierce and the gang instead of late prime Ray Allen that they wouldn't have been just as good, if not better given that Richmond was the stronger defender. Joe Dumars could have done the trick too.

I was rather disappointed by Richmond time and time again over his career. I would absolutely go with Ray Allen over him.

5 VORP seasons equal or better than Mitch's best. 8 equal or better than Mitch's 2nd best. 5 WS 10+ seasons vs 1. 8 PER seasons to 2. 25 career VORP for richmond vs 58.1 for Allen. 79.3 WS for Richmond vs 145.1 for Allen. By every stat we have Allen peaked higher, peaked longer, and had a significantly better career. But Richmond was a volume scorer in an era where 25 a game even on a bad team got you a lot of all nba considerations.

Wilkins, English and Dantley are better arguments that Richmond for me. I'm not sure Richmond will get much consideration on this project, and if so it'll be a while for me.

Wilkins English and Dantley SHOULD be better arguments than Richmond.

And they also should be better arguments than Ray Allen.

The point is not that Mitch Richmond is a Top 50 player, the point is that neither is Ray Allen. In fact Ray Allen WAS Mitch Richmond until he got lucky enough to get traded to go run for bagels in Boston, then ran away to go do the same for Bron. Largely the same character. Begins career as part of a three-headed moderately successful monster in Milwaukee, just as Mitch did in Golden State. Then gets traded off to an unsuccessful stint as not-quite-good-enough-to-be franchise player on a West Coast team. Makes the playoffs once on his own. And along the way these are his pace-adjusted stats compared to Richmond's:

Per 100 Possessions
Allen 28.0pts (.452 .400 .894) 6.0reb 5.0ast 1.7stl 0.3blk 3.1TO
Mitch 29.6pts (.455 .388 .850) 5.5reb 4.9ast 1.7ast 0.3blk 3.7TO

So yeah, huge gap between those two players and all that. If Mitch was a "volume shooter" than so was Ray. One is more recent and spammed more threes. The other played better defense. About it statistically.

And NEITHER of them were worthy of picking up the sweaty smelly jock of the MVP caliber guards and wings still remaining. Ray Allen is a candidate for the 60th spot. Maybe 65. He's completely out of place as a Top 50 candidate. He'd get his ass kicked by any true Top 50 player, and so would his team.

This whole exercise is rendered moot if all we're going to do is go right down the list of all time WS without any further thought put into it. I already know what that list says, and I can see where it does well and where it fails. WS don't exist. They are a made up number. They will tell you Vince Carter is better than Dwayne Wade or Julius Erving too.

The gap in VORP between Mitch and Ray is massive and tells me at their peaks, Ray was a MUCH better player. That matches what I saw of Richmond (all be it not a lot given....his teams weren't on tv). Boston imo isn't really important to Ray's legacy. It helps, but he did more on the bucks than Mitch really ever did.

[Clyde Frazier]

This is a tough choice. The question is whether Reed has enough to overcome Iverson's longevity advantage, and on balance, I think he does.

Iverson has a substantial RS longevity advantage -- 914 games and 37K minutes compared to 650 games and 23K minutes for Reed. But they are closer in the PS -- 71 games and 3,203 minutes for Iverson compared to 78 games and 2,641 minutes for Reed. The RS longevity is a clear plus for Iverson, but I value the PS more, so Reed helps himself there.

Iverson's efficiency hurts him -- 51.8 RS TS%, 48.9 PS TS%. For a guy whose reputation is based primarily on offense, that's not good. I do give him a bit of a break because he was the sole decent offensive option much of the time.

Reed is only slightly better -- 52.3 RS TS% and 51.1 PS TS%. Considering that post players typically have higher shooting percentages, that's almost a negative for Reed.

Iverson's basic RS stats -- 26.7 PPG, 6.2 APG, 3.7 RPG, 2.2 STL, 3.6 TOV
Reed's basic RS stats -- 18.7 PPG, 12.9 RPG, 1.8 APG (turnovers, steals, blocks not available)

Iverson's basic PS stats -- 29.7 PPG, 6.0 APG, 3.8 RPG, 2.1 STL, 3.1 TOV
Reed's basic PS stats -- 17.4 PPG, 10.3 RPG, 1.9 APG

Iverson's scoring and assists are very good, and he elevated his production in the playoffs, though not his efficiency.

Reed's scoring is good, but not great, though it might have been better had he not spent most of his career with other capable scorers.

Reed was a capable defender, but he was known more as an offensive player. Iverson wasn't great at defense -- his size hurt him -- but he had good hands, long arms, and great anticipation, and his steals numbers are very good. I give the advantage to Reed here, but not by a huge margin.

In the intangibles area, Reed was "The Captain," well-respected and known as a leader. Iverson led in a different way, but he was a prickly sort that often clashed with his coaches, was habitually late to practice, and that type of thing. Another advantage to Reed.

But on balance, I don't see where Reed has enough to overcome Iverson. Beside the advantage in longevity, Iverson was an excellent scorer and very good at assists for a guy who scored so much. His efficiency wasn't great, but neither was Reed's. Reed wins in the intangibles department, but that's not near enough.

Runoff vote: Iverson

Regarding scoring efficiency, relative to league average TS%, reed for his career was a few percentage points higher than league average vs. iverson being a few percentage points lower. This widens the gap in reed's favor. Comparing them at face value from different eras isn't really equal.

[Outside]

Just quoting you to make sure you know the update about Ray Allen's availability

Thanks.

Reed, Iverson, and Allen -- is it possible to come up with three more distinctly different players?

Ray Allen has a clear advantage in shooting efficiency, and he's now the longevity winner among the three, but that's it. Allen was a more well-rounded player during his Milwaukee and Seattle days, but he wasn't known as a playmaker or rebounder even then. Ray Allen could shoot. For the last third of his career, that's about all he could do. He was never known as a good defender or ballhandler. His turnover numbers were low, but that's mainly because he was a catch-and-shoot guy, not a penetrate-and-score-or-kick guy. I suppose it's a plus that the guy knew what he was good at, played to his strengths, and minimized his limitations.

I'm going to stick with Iverson.

[Outside]

Regarding scoring efficiency, relative to league average TS% reed for his career was a few percentage points higher than league average vs. iverson being a few percentage points lower. This widens the gap in reed's favor. Comparing them at face value from different eras isn't really equal.

That doesn't consider the positional difference -- that an offensive-minded post player will normally shoot a higher percentage than an offensive-minded perimeter player. Sure, Reed shot a lot from mid-range, but he still got a lot of shots near the basket.

Then there's the difference is defensive focus -- Reed usually had several good offensive teammates, and he was rarely the focus of defensive attention. Iverson, on the other hand, played with the defensive focus almost totally on him.

It's not just a matter of rTS%. Context matters. To me, the advantage for Reed in efficiency isn't much to begin with and disappears when you consider the context.

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Ray Allen

I have a deep respect for what Allen did all throughout his career. Reed's superior peak really doesn't make up for Allen's longevity edge.

Iverson? Well, if I"m building a contending team, I'd love to have either Allen or Reed. Not sure if I'd want AI at all.

[trex_8063]

Wilkins English and Dantley SHOULD be better arguments than Richmond.

And they also should be better arguments than Ray Allen.

The point is not that Mitch Richmond is a Top 50 player, the point is that neither is Ray Allen. In fact Ray Allen WAS Mitch Richmond until he got lucky enough to get traded to go run for bagels in Boston, then ran away to go do the same for Bron. Largely the same character. Begins career as part of a three-headed moderately successful monster in Milwaukee, just as Mitch did in Golden State. Then gets traded off to an unsuccessful stint as not-quite-good-enough-to-be franchise player on a West Coast team. Makes the playoffs once on his own. And along the way these are his pace-adjusted stats compared to Richmond's:

Per 100 Possessions
Allen 28.0pts (.452 .400 .894) 6.0reb 5.0ast 1.7stl 0.3blk 3.1TO
Mitch 29.6pts (.455 .388 .850) 5.5reb 4.9ast 1.7ast 0.3blk 3.7TO

idk, this again seems a little "spun" and not quite like an apples to apples comparison.

For one, you're comparing career numbers here, despite one career having lasted 14 years while the other was 18.

If we look only at Allen's first 14 seasons, we see the following per 100 possession numbers:
29.3 pts, 6.2 reb, 5.3 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.3 TOV.....in 37.1 mpg, fwiw (Richmond's career avg was marginally lower 35.2).

Secondly, the manner in which you presented some of the shooting data is inappropriate: you utilized raw FG% (which favors Richmond by a near-negligible amount), despite the fact that Allen had a MUCH higher 3PAr.
If we look at % by area:
Richmond: 47.4% 2pt, 38.8% 3pt, 85.0% FT
Allen ('97-'10): 48.3% 2pt, 39.6% 3pt, 89.4% FT

So we see Allen is actually a little better from absolutely everywhere on the court (his career %'s are actually marginally better than his "1st 14 season" sample, fwiw)----57.6% TS [58.0% for career] vs 55.7% for Richmond----while scoring the same volume. Simultaneously was the slightly better rebounder and playmaker (higher ast anyway), while turning the ball over less (Allen's career rs Modified TOV% is 8.27 [7.73% in the playoffs], Richmond's is 9.24).

....and then, where Richmond's career was over, Allen went on to play 4 more useful seasons beyond that.
On the flip-side, Richmond was a better defender. But not exactly a stalwart defender (and it's not like Allen was James Harden bad defensively); tbh, I'm not sure his defensive advantage equals the statistical edge we can clearly see for Allen. And that's before we consider the additional four seasons.


Measuring team success in raw terms is no contest, but the water is terribly muddied by the awful casts Richmond had in Sacramento. However, if we look at Allen-led teams like the '01 Bucks or '05 Sonics, are those casts so much better as to account for a +5-6 SRS difference that exists between them and the BEST Richmond-led cast? It's open for debate, but it's a bit of a hard sell for me.
I also note that where the Allen-led teams were good was pretty consistently on offense. In fact, once Allen was in his prime, there was not a single Allen-led team that was NOT at least top 10 offensively (SIX times they were in the top 3, once #1).


Context is very important to consider, although ultimately, there's a finite amount speculative "correcting" for career luck I'm willing to do where Richmond (or anyone) is concerned. EDIT: And further it should be considered that Allen put up similar or slightly better numbers for [mostly] better teams. Even if the teams are better because of his supporting cast--->a stronger supporting cast means less need for a star player to put up big numbers (because he has more talent around him).

I can't really get a peg on how you feel about "correcting" for career luck. You panned Pau Gasol in the last thread for going 0-12 in the playoffs in Memphis. Still......that's THREE times he led them into the playoffs [in a tough as nails WC] as the clear [often by far] best player; he never had a truly "good" cast in Memphis (three years of roughly average supporting cast......and those are the years they made the playoffs).

But otoh you'll quickly give DeMarcus a pass on the bad records because his casts have been trash, and apparently the same goes for Richmond (who had a 1-4 playoff record in ONE playoff appearance in EIGHT seasons as the top dog). You frequently spurn the team success of others with facetious remarks about how players "magically become winners once they get on a good team".

So it seems for you a player's team success [or lack there of] is sometimes not of his doing (e.g. Cousins, Richmond), and other times the team result is their fault.

[dhsilv2]

This is a tough choice. The question is whether Reed has enough to overcome Iverson's longevity advantage, and on balance, I think he does.

Iverson has a substantial RS longevity advantage -- 914 games and 37K minutes compared to 650 games and 23K minutes for Reed. But they are closer in the PS -- 71 games and 3,203 minutes for Iverson compared to 78 games and 2,641 minutes for Reed. The RS longevity is a clear plus for Iverson, but I value the PS more, so Reed helps himself there.

Iverson's efficiency hurts him -- 51.8 RS TS%, 48.9 PS TS%. For a guy whose reputation is based primarily on offense, that's not good. I do give him a bit of a break because he was the sole decent offensive option much of the time.

Reed is only slightly better -- 52.3 RS TS% and 51.1 PS TS%. Considering that post players typically have higher shooting percentages, that's almost a negative for Reed.

Iverson's basic RS stats -- 26.7 PPG, 6.2 APG, 3.7 RPG, 2.2 STL, 3.6 TOV
Reed's basic RS stats -- 18.7 PPG, 12.9 RPG, 1.8 APG (turnovers, steals, blocks not available)

Iverson's basic PS stats -- 29.7 PPG, 6.0 APG, 3.8 RPG, 2.1 STL, 3.1 TOV
Reed's basic PS stats -- 17.4 PPG, 10.3 RPG, 1.9 APG

Iverson's scoring and assists are very good, and he elevated his production in the playoffs, though not his efficiency.

Reed's scoring is good, but not great, though it might have been better had he not spent most of his career with other capable scorers.

Reed was a capable defender, but he was known more as an offensive player. Iverson wasn't great at defense -- his size hurt him -- but he had good hands, long arms, and great anticipation, and his steals numbers are very good. I give the advantage to Reed here, but not by a huge margin.

In the intangibles area, Reed was "The Captain," well-respected and known as a leader. Iverson led in a different way, but he was a prickly sort that often clashed with his coaches, was habitually late to practice, and that type of thing. Another advantage to Reed.

But on balance, I don't see where Reed has enough to overcome Iverson. Beside the advantage in longevity, Iverson was an excellent scorer and very good at assists for a guy who scored so much. His efficiency wasn't great, but neither was Reed's. Reed wins in the intangibles department, but that's not near enough.

Runoff vote: Iverson

It should be noted Reed was an all nba defensive team selection once so saying he was an offensive guy I think under sells him on that end. He was form all I have seen an impact defender, though some of that is likely coming from his teammates who were very good on that end.

[SactoKingsFan]

Run-off vote: Ray Allen

Reed - Has the highest peak but just doesn't have enough longevity. There's still at least a few bigs (Gasol, Mutombo, Thurmond, Unseld, Mourning) I think have a good case over Reed. Will be ready to vote for Reed in early 60s.

Iverson v Allen - Iverson has the personal accolades edge and was considered more of a star but I'm not convinced he actually provided more total career value. With Allen you get the clear longevity advantage, highly portable skill-set and a peak that wasn't clearly worse than Iverson's peak. 01 Allen was great during the RS and played like a borderline superstar during the PS. Cassell and Robinson generally struggled during the Bucks 01 PS run while Allen nearly led them to the Finals.



Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

[Outside]

It should be noted Reed was an all nba defensive team selection once so saying he was an offensive guy I think under sells him on that end. He was form all I have seen an impact defender, though some of that is likely coming from his teammates who were very good on that end.

Reed was a good defender. He was strong and smart, and he fit in well with an excellent defensive team (the Knicks led the league in opponent scoring three straight seasons starting in 1968-69). But he was part of a good defense, not a defensive anchor like Russell or Thurmond. In 1971-72, with Reed missing all but 11 games, the Knicks dropped only two spots to third in opponent scoring and actually gave up fewer points per game than the previous season. Reed wasn't a weak link, but the strength of the Knicks' defense was the perimeter guys.

[trex_8063]

For the runoff, as it often does for me, this one is sort of decided by the longevity.
As much as I like Willis Reed's game, I just don't think his career----which is essentially only 8 seasons (not counting 11 ineffectual games in '72, and 19 games as only slightly above average in '74), only five that could generously be called prime seasons----can quite stack up to the total career value of either Iverson or Allen (both of whom had primes that add up to more games than Reed played in his entire career).

So Reed is out for me right from the start; I'm deciding between Allen and Iverson.

I'd mentioned some things in one post within this thread, regarding Iverson's ability to [even if he's missing shots] create a little offensive rebounding bonus, because he breaks down defenses and gets shots up on to the rim where interior defenders have left their man to contest his shot.
It's just one of the ways outside his own box-score that he can impact the offense. He's also got a relatively low turnover rate compared to all that he produces (career rs Modified TOV% of 8.55---which is neither good nor bad----but a nice low 6.82% career mark in the playoffs).
Just wanting to point out some positives, as I think sometimes his mediocre-poor shooting efficiency is fixated on just a little too much (not that it isn't a valid concern, btw).

One or two posters have suggested the ceiling with Allen Iverson as "the man" is decidedly below great.....and they're probably right. The same is true of Ray Allen, fwiw (as well as some of the other wings who have been mentioned); and the ceiling is probably marginally higher with Iverson than with Allen (as an example, I've wondered just how good the '01 Sixers could have been if they had Eddie Jones as starting SF instead of George Lynch.......that one change could have made them a more legit contender, imo).
Anyway, the reason that Allen Iverson gets hit with this criticism so often is that he seemed relatively unwilling to take on a secondary role.


Anyway, so there's some of the good and the bad of Allen Iverson.
I'm ultimately going to go with Ray Allen in the runoff, though, and again: it's largely about the longevity. I think Allen Iverson peaked higher, though not as much as his MVP award implies (I think there were other players who were more deserving). And given equal length careers---like if Allen retired after his 14th season (Iverson played just slightly less: about 13.7 seasons)----I'd go with Allen Iverson.
But Ray Ray didn't retire after 14 seasons. He was still going fairly strong, even earned an All-Star nod in his 15th season, and was an above average player at least as far as his 17th season (arguably in his 18th, too). It's in those four years that he pulls slightly [I have them very close on my ATL] ahead of Iverson for me.

Runoff vote: Ray Allen

[dhsilv2]

It should be noted Reed was an all nba defensive team selection once so saying he was an offensive guy I think under sells him on that end. He was form all I have seen an impact defender, though some of that is likely coming from his teammates who were very good on that end.

Reed was a good defender. He was strong and smart, and he fit in well with an excellent defensive team (the Knicks led the league in opponent scoring three straight seasons starting in 1968-69). But he was part of a good defense, not a defensive anchor like Russell or Thurmond. In 1971-72, with Reed missing all but 11 games, the Knicks dropped only two spots to third in opponent scoring and actually gave up fewer points per game than the previous season. Reed wasn't a weak link, but the strength of the Knicks' defense was the perimeter guys.

I agree, but I feel and wording is always nuances that he was more than "capable" which to me said you were calling him pretty average. He was an above average defender at what is generally seen as the most important position for defense. When comparing him to Iverson, he's not just better but considerably better. But we agree on everything you said above, as certainly his team's over all defense was great and absolutely that made them special was walt who we already have in for that reason. But I think perhaps we're saying the same thing, I just wanted to make sure you weren't lumping him with a rather run of the mill average defender.

[trex_8063]

It should be noted Reed was an all nba defensive team selection once so saying he was an offensive guy I think under sells him on that end. He was form all I have seen an impact defender, though some of that is likely coming from his teammates who were very good on that end.

Reed was a good defender. He was strong and smart, and he fit in well with an excellent defensive team (the Knicks led the league in opponent scoring three straight seasons starting in 1968-69). But he was part of a good defense, not a defensive anchor like Russell or Thurmond. In 1971-72, with Reed missing all but 11 games, the Knicks dropped only two spots to third in opponent scoring and actually gave up fewer points per game than the previous season.

The league average pace was dropping quite rapidly, though: it fell by 3.1 from '71 to '72 (and the Knicks' pace fell by 4.2)......that effects the ppg allowed. In terms of league rank in DRtg, they fell from 2nd to 6th, and there's a noticeable relation in their rDRTG:

'71: -3.9
'72: -1.6
'73: -4.3

I personally feel Reed was the most important defensive player on that team some of those years (though perhaps not by a large margin over guys like Frazier or DeBusschere, and I generally agree that he's not the same class of defensive anchor as Thurmond or Russell).

[dhsilv2]

For the runoff, as it often does for me, this one is sort of decided by the longevity.
As much as I like Willis Reed's game, I just don't think his career----which is essentially only 8 seasons (not counting 11 ineffectual games in '72, and 19 games as only slightly above average in '74), only five that could generously be called prime seasons----can quite stack up to the total career value of either Iverson or Allen (both of whom had primes that add up to more games than Reed played in his entire career).

I find how people think on these things pretty interesting.

Lets say we have a hypothetical player, who has a 4 year career. 4 MVP's 4 titles and while the clear best player in the league not 4 "all time great seasons" just 4 "average" to "above average" best player in the league runs. Where would that kind of player rank for you? I'm just wondering where the longevity and peak shift for you. Your rankings seem so so far from where I'd rank them, that I'd like to get a better feel. maybe it'll help me make better cases

[SactoKingsFan]

Just quoting you to make sure you know the update about Ray Allen's availability

Thanks.

Reed, Iverson, and Allen -- is it possible to come up with three more distinctly different players?

Ray Allen has a clear advantage in shooting efficiency, and he's now the longevity winner among the three, but that's it. Allen was a more well-rounded player during his Milwaukee and Seattle days, but he wasn't known as a playmaker or rebounder even then. Ray Allen could shoot. For the last third of his career, that's about all he could do. He was never known as a good defender or ballhandler. His turnover numbers were low, but that's mainly because he was a catch-and-shoot guy, not a penetrate-and-score-or-kick guy. I suppose it's a plus that the guy knew what he was good at, played to his strengths, and minimized his limitations.

I'm going to stick with Iverson.

Younger Allen was more versatile, pretty athletic (especially with Bucks) and had no issues creating his own shot. Was actually a pretty good ballhandler in MIL and SEA.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

[Outside]

It should be noted Reed was an all nba defensive team selection once so saying he was an offensive guy I think under sells him on that end. He was form all I have seen an impact defender, though some of that is likely coming from his teammates who were very good on that end.

Reed was a good defender. He was strong and smart, and he fit in well with an excellent defensive team (the Knicks led the league in opponent scoring three straight seasons starting in 1968-69). But he was part of a good defense, not a defensive anchor like Russell or Thurmond. In 1971-72, with Reed missing all but 11 games, the Knicks dropped only two spots to third in opponent scoring and actually gave up fewer points per game than the previous season. Reed wasn't a weak link, but the strength of the Knicks' defense was the perimeter guys.

I agree, but I feel and wording is always nuances that he was more than "capable" which to me said you were calling him pretty average. He was an above average defender at what is generally seen as the most important position for defense. When comparing him to Iverson, he's not just better but considerably better. But we agree on everything you said above, as certainly his team's over all defense was great and absolutely that made them special was walt who we already have in for that reason. But I think perhaps we're saying the same thing, I just wanted to make sure you weren't lumping him with a rather run of the mill average defender.

Thanks for asking the question, which prodded me to be more detailed.

"Capable" is probably one of those words that is too malleable for what I intended. I meant it in a positive way, but I can that someone might consider it a slight. That wasn't what I was after.

Perhaps "good not great" would be better? Here's the factors I had in mind:

-- He was a well-rounded player but had more impact offensively.

-- Reed was good defensively, but he was significantly below Russell and Thurmond. Their impact was at a whole nother level.

-- While not a defensive anchor to build around, he fit in well with a defensive-minded team.

[trex_8063]

For the runoff, as it often does for me, this one is sort of decided by the longevity.
As much as I like Willis Reed's game, I just don't think his career----which is essentially only 8 seasons (not counting 11 ineffectual games in '72, and 19 games as only slightly above average in '74), only five that could generously be called prime seasons----can quite stack up to the total career value of either Iverson or Allen (both of whom had primes that add up to more games than Reed played in his entire career).

I find how people think on these things pretty interesting.

Lets say we have a hypothetical player, who has a 4 year career. 4 MVP's 4 titles and while the clear best player in the league......

Just so we're clear: what you've described is significantly better than Reed ever was.
But hypothetically speaking, that might put this player ahead of the candidates here (if we're talking about a player in a competitive era). Not sure, depends on the specifics.

As an example, I rank Stephen Curry ahead of all three of these runoff candidates, even though he's only played 8 seasons. But three of his seasons have been "holy ****!" good (like any one of them would put him in the top 20-25 [at least] on a peaks list for me), one other is clear All-NBA (1st or 2nd team) caliber, another is clear All-Star (maybe 3rd team) caliber, another is borderline All-Star level; the remaining two seasons are his rookie year (which was at least average) and an injury year (missed more than half the season, though was playing at an All-Star click when active).

But though I rank Curry ahead of these candidates, I rank him lower than we [collectively] have in this project. #29 was too high by my criteria (again on basis of longevity, which is lacking).