Vince Carter vs Ray Allen, why do you rank Ray's career higher?

[Gibson22]

Vince Carter vs Ray Allen, why do you rank Ray's career higher?

[Cavsfansince84]

Mainly I think it has to do with people recognizing the value of a guy like Ray who is largely seen as a top 5 all time shooter and who is so good off ball. He's also seen as a great clutch shooter. Vince's style of play isn't in vogue the way it used to be and is kind of looked down upon now. So people see Ray as the better player to have on your team. Longevity/prime wise they are about equal in terms of how long their primes and careers were. Having said that I think Vince may be a bit underrated.

[bizil]

Ray has two rings ,is a top 5 all time shooter, was a 10 time All Star, and had a bit more longevity being an All Star caliber player. So I think that's what gives him the edge. Peak-prime wise I would say Vince was better. But it wasn't a huge gap in that regard. Ray has done enough to be a top 10 GOAT SG. And when u look at Vince, MAYBE has a case for top 10 GOAT SG:

MJ
Kobe
West
Wade
Drexler
AI
Gervin
Ray
Reggie

I think these nine are locks in the top 10 GOAT SG. After these guys u get into Pistol Pete, Monroe, Vince, Dumars, etc. So Vince could be ranked anywhere from 10 to 15 GOAT wise among the SG's.

[Missing Rings]

Ray has two rings

One as a third option and one as a bench player playing 25 MPG.

,is a top 5 all time shooter, was a 10 time All Star, and had a bit more longevity being an All Star caliber player.

How many more years do you think he has on Vince as an All-star level player?

So I think that's what gives him the edge. Peak-prime wise I would say Vince was better. But it wasn't a huge gap in that regard.

Which gap is smaller, peak/prime level or Vince or Ray's extra season or two? Are you weighing fringe all-star seasons the same as higher-impact prime years?

Ray has done enough to be a top 10 GOAT SG. And when u look at Vince, MAYBE has a case for top 10 GOAT SG:

So they both have a case for top 10?

[bizil]

Ray has two rings

One as a third option and one as a bench player playing 25 MPG.

,is a top 5 all time shooter, was a 10 time All Star, and had a bit more longevity being an All Star caliber player.

How many more years do you think he has on Vince as an All-star level player?

So I think that's what gives him the edge. Peak-prime wise I would say Vince was better. But it wasn't a huge gap in that regard.

Which gap is smaller, peak/prime level or Vince or Ray's extra season or two? Are you weighing fringe all-star seasons the same as higher-impact prime years?

Ray has done enough to be a top 10 GOAT SG. And when u look at Vince, MAYBE has a case for top 10 GOAT SG:

So they both have a case for top 10?

THE POINT IS Ray won two rings though! U FORGET that clutch shot Ray made in the Finals with the Heat ! If it wasn't for that shot, the SERIES was over. The BOTTOM LINE is Ray was a key contributor on that team! HE EARNED THAT ****! And with his first ring in Boston, WHO CARES if he was a third option! He was still an All Star! MANY of the title teams had three alpha dog type players on them. OR three All Stars on them. If u penalize Ray, u gotta penalize guys like Parish, Bosh, Love, Worthy, Manu, Klay, etc. All these guys are HOF level guys who were on teams SO TALENTED they were the 3rd option! If u take THOSE GUYS off those teams, there's a VERY GOOD TO GREAT CHANCE their teams don't win rings!

And I gave you the reasons WHY Ray has the better career GOAT wise! I clearly pointed them out. Your career resume is YOUR CAREER RESUME! And when u line up their careers its PERFECTLY LOGICAL that Ray had the better career. It's not very hard to tell in my opinion! Even though Vince was the better player peak-prime wise.

[mischievous]

When i stop to think about it, there probably isn’t a big difference between the 2. I do think Ray has been a more reliable offensive weapon though that probably isn’t visible in the numbers.

[Missing Rings]

THE POINT IS Ray won two rings though!

Are players like K.C. Jones, Frank Ramsey, and Jim Loscutoff high up on your GOAT list considering how many "rings" they won?

U FORGET that clutch shot Ray made in the Finals with the Heat ! If it wasn't for that shot, the SERIES was over.

I perfectly remember it. Are we defining players by one shot they made in their careers? If Chris Bosh hits the winner in game 1 the series is completely different. Are you holding that one against Bosh just as much as you praise Allen for making his?

The BOTTOM LINE is Ray was a key contributor on that team! HE EARNED THAT ****! And with his first ring in Boston, WHO CARES if he was a third option! He was still an All Star! MANY of the title teams had three alpha dog type players on them. OR three All Stars on them. If u penalize Ray, u gotta penalize guys like Parish, Bosh, Love, Worthy, Manu, Klay, etc.

I don't need to penalize any player. If you look at the context of them, what made them great isn't because they "Won Titles!", rather how they impacted their teams on the way to winning the title. These are two separate ideologies and one is far more valuable in player evaluation. Are we going to penalize players who never were in position to be "3rd options" on title teams even if they were better players?

All these guys are HOF level guys who were on teams SO TALENTED they were the 3rd option! If u take THOSE GUYS off those teams, there's a VERY GOOD TO GREAT CHANCE their teams don't win rings!

Sure, but their are also players who could have replaced their impact (if not increased it) but never had that opportunity. Is Chris Bosh better than Karl Malone because Bosh won 2 rings as a #3 option while Karl Malone never won as a #1 option? What about comparing Chris Webber and Robert Parish?

And I gave you the reasons WHY Ray has the better career GOAT wise! I clearly pointed them out. Your career resume is YOUR CAREER RESUME! And when u line up their careers its PERFECTLY LOGICAL that Ray had the better career. It's not very hard to tell in my opinion! Even though Vince was the better player peak-prime wise.

I am asking you to expand. You say "Ray Allen has more years in his prime", and I am asking how you came up with that? Which years did you use for each player? If you make a statement as Player A having a longer prime than Player B, I am curious what years you quantify as Prime.

If you say that Vince Carter had a higher peak/prime level, what makes you think that? Is it is scoring? Defense? I am curious when you make a claim with no evidence provided why you think a certain way and how you get to a conclusion.

[HeartBreakKid]

Bringing up Ray Allen's rings...lol he won one as the 3rd best player on one team and another one as a bench player...

[bizil]

Bringing up Ray Allen's rings...lol he won one as the 3rd best player on one team and another one as a bench player...

When u bring up GOAT STATUS, u BRING UP the ENTIRE RESUME of player!!! Solo accolades, team accolades, numbers, peak-prime status, longevity being great, impact on the league, etc. SO when u look at Ray's career in the GOAT realm, U GOTTA bring up EVERYTHING!!! When Ray won his first ring, he WAS STILL an All Star caliber player in his prime! So if u are gonna take that away FROM HIM, u gotta take away EVERY ALL STAR 3rd option in NBA history! So should Klay be PENALIZED for being a third option on GSW?? Should Worthy be penalized??? Ray was an HOFer BEFORE he ever got to Boston! He proved his worth!

I can go on DOWN THE LIST of HOF type guys who were the 3rd option DUE to the talent on their teams! Many of them are in the HOF! And others will be there someday!! I gotta admit some posters on this site are either TROLLS OR IGNORANT!!! It takes away from having healthy basketball DEBATES! Do u FOOLS understand GOAT status is a player's ENTIRE RESUME!!! All elements MUST BE LISTED!!! When Ray went to Miami, he went the McAdoo or Walton type route. An HOF level player who IN HIS FINAL DAYS could still make a great contribution off the bench. Could they have started on other teams in general?? OF COURSE!! But they chose to take lesser roles to win rings! If u are gonna knock Ray, u gotta knock other legends who did the same thing!

[dhsilv2]

I have never seen anyone give Walton any credit for his rings on the celtics. He gets credit for being a quality player for them, but no the ring has never been added to his resume as a value add. Nor should it.

[bizil]

I have never seen anyone give Walton any credit for his rings on the celtics. He gets credit for being a quality player for them, but no the ring has never been added to his resume as a value add. Nor should it.

U missed my ENTIRE POINT! My point was some legends SWALLOW their pride and will play a lesser role ON TALENTED TEAMS to win rings late in their career. And make valuable contributions. Ray, McAdoo, and Walton all fit that bill. When u look at their resume, THOSE RINGS are a part of it! THE DAMN QUESTION was who is the better player GOAT wise Ray or Vince. I said Ray because GOAT STATUS is your ENTIRE RESUME! So listed elements of Ray's resume. When IN THE HELL did I EVER SAY Ray's ring with the Heat was the BE ALL END ALL??? He won a ring with Boston as an All Star in his prime BEFORE THAT! I just stated IN GENERAL Ray was a 10 time All Star, won two rings, is a top 5 shooter of all time, and has a bit more longevity than Vince being a GREAT PLAYER! Those are FACTS! I stated Ray's resume in a nutshell BECAUSE the question was WHOSE the better player GOAT wise!!!

[Wallace_Wallace]

THE POINT IS Ray won two rings though!

Are players like K.C. Jones, Frank Ramsey, and Jim Loscutoff high up on your GOAT list considering how many "rings" they won?

U FORGET that clutch shot Ray made in the Finals with the Heat ! If it wasn't for that shot, the SERIES was over.

I perfectly remember it. Are we defining players by one shot they made in their careers? If Chris Bosh hits the winner in game 1 the series is completely different. Are you holding that one against Bosh just as much as you praise Allen for making his?

The BOTTOM LINE is Ray was a key contributor on that team! HE EARNED THAT ****! And with his first ring in Boston, WHO CARES if he was a third option! He was still an All Star! MANY of the title teams had three alpha dog type players on them. OR three All Stars on them. If u penalize Ray, u gotta penalize guys like Parish, Bosh, Love, Worthy, Manu, Klay, etc.

I don't need to penalize any player. If you look at the context of them, what made them great isn't because they "Won Titles!", rather how they impacted their teams on the way to winning the title. These are two separate ideologies and one is far more valuable in player evaluation. Are we going to penalize players who never were in position to be "3rd options" on title teams even if they were better players?

All these guys are HOF level guys who were on teams SO TALENTED they were the 3rd option! If u take THOSE GUYS off those teams, there's a VERY GOOD TO GREAT CHANCE their teams don't win rings!

Sure, but their are also players who could have replaced their impact (if not increased it) but never had that opportunity. Is Chris Bosh better than Karl Malone because Bosh won 2 rings as a #3 option while Karl Malone never won as a #1 option? What about comparing Chris Webber and Robert Parish?

And I gave you the reasons WHY Ray has the better career GOAT wise! I clearly pointed them out. Your career resume is YOUR CAREER RESUME! And when u line up their careers its PERFECTLY LOGICAL that Ray had the better career. It's not very hard to tell in my opinion! Even though Vince was the better player peak-prime wise.

I am asking you to expand. You say "Ray Allen has more years in his prime", and I am asking how you came up with that? Which years did you use for each player? If you make a statement as Player A having a longer prime than Player B, I am curious what years you quantify as Prime.

If you say that Vince Carter had a higher peak/prime level, what makes you think that? Is it is scoring? Defense? I am curious when you make a claim with no evidence provided why you think a certain way and how you get to a conclusion.

Ray Allen wasn't there for the ride in 2008. He was as importantly as anyone on the team. In fact, he was the most efficient scorer in that series averaged over 50% from the field and 3 pointers. He was the player of the game in the most important game of the series (game 4 coming back from a 20+ point deficit). The most memorable moment for Pierce in that finals was the "injury" that he suffered in game 1. I don't think he DEFINITELY outplayed Ray Allen for the FMVP

[Xherdan 23]

Ray has two rings

One as a third option and one as a bench player playing 25 MPG.

,is a top 5 all time shooter, was a 10 time All Star, and had a bit more longevity being an All Star caliber player.

How many more years do you think he has on Vince as an All-star level player?

So I think that's what gives him the edge. Peak-prime wise I would say Vince was better. But it wasn't a huge gap in that regard.

Which gap is smaller, peak/prime level or Vince or Ray's extra season or two? Are you weighing fringe all-star seasons the same as higher-impact prime years?

Ray has done enough to be a top 10 GOAT SG. And when u look at Vince, MAYBE has a case for top 10 GOAT SG:

So they both have a case for top 10?

THE POINT IS Ray won two rings though! U FORGET that clutch shot Ray made in the Finals with the Heat ! If it wasn't for that shot, the SERIES was over. The BOTTOM LINE is Ray was a key contributor on that team! HE EARNED THAT ****! And with his first ring in Boston, WHO CARES if he was a third option! He was still an All Star! MANY of the title teams had three alpha dog type players on them. OR three All Stars on them. If u penalize Ray, u gotta penalize guys like Parish, Bosh, Love, Worthy, Manu, Klay, etc. All these guys are HOF level guys who were on teams SO TALENTED they were the 3rd option! If u take THOSE GUYS off those teams, there's a VERY GOOD TO GREAT CHANCE their teams don't win rings!

And I gave you the reasons WHY Ray has the better career GOAT wise! I clearly pointed them out. Your career resume is YOUR CAREER RESUME! And when u line up their careers its PERFECTLY LOGICAL that Ray had the better career. It's not very hard to tell in my opinion! Even though Vince was the better player peak-prime wise.

Holy ****. I thought this post was a parody on bad posting. I actually agree with some of your arguments bt putting them in ALL CAPS(!!!!) doesn't make them any more convincing.

THE POINT IS Ray won two rings though! U FORGET that clutch shot Ray made in the Finals with the Heat

So what? Talking about rings without context doesn't mean much and one shot does not define a career, clutch or not.

If u penalize Ray, u gotta penalize guys like Parish, Bosh, Love, Worthy, Manu, Klay, etc. All these guys are HOF level guys who were on teams SO TALENTED they were the 3rd option!

It's not penalizing to point out their actual contributions to their teams. Do you think Parish should be higher than Ewing on a career all time list because he won with Boston? Or Worthy over Drexler? Klay and Harden? You get the point.

If u take THOSE GUYS off those teams, there's a VERY GOOD TO GREAT CHANCE their teams don't win rings!

Quite possible but that's not the argument. You should ask if the Big 3 Celtics for example could win with Vince instead of Ray, not if they could win without Ray or a similar level replacement. It's obvious they contributed but the question is how much and I think Vince as a 1st/2nd option in his prime is better than prime Ray as a 1st/2nd option. Vince isn't even that far behind as a post prime role player IMO (though I would take Ray over him in most situations).

[Dr Positivity]

Vince may be a better #1 option but I prefer Allen on teams with other HOFers. His spacing makes an impact without needing the ball and he has better intangibles. I feel the Nets and Celtics are better off with Allen.

[Missing Rings]

Ray Allen wasn't there for the ride in 2008. He was as importantly as anyone on the team.

To say he was important as Kevin Garnett is simply a false statement which holds no ground in this conversation. He was the best offensive and defensive player for the 2008 Celtics.

In fact, he was the most efficient scorer in that series averaged over 50% from the field and 3 pointers.

I'm not sure how this is valuable in player comparison to Vince Carter. Vince Carter never played with guys like Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce. Are you surprised that Allen was able to be "efficient" with both Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett? Because that is what is expected of Ray Allen.

He was the player of the game in the most important game of the series (game 4 coming back from a 20+ point deficit).

Was he? Kevin Garnett was +17 for the game, Ray Allen was +6. The Lakers only scored 33 points in the second half, are we going to give all the credit to Ray Allen for playing great defense or the defensive anchor who was causing havoc all over the floor?

The most memorable moment for Pierce in that finals was the "injury" that he suffered in game 1. I don't think he DEFINITELY outplayed Ray Allen for the FMVP

Okay, I am not sure what you are saying here? I don't think I ever brought up Pierce vs Allen, but apparently you misread the title and thought this was a thread about Allen vs Pierce in the 2008 Finals?

[mikejames23]

Ray Allen simply put chased what was considered as being successful. Add onto this his portability simply works for the best of his time (Shaq, LeBron). He picked the right skill and talent set to maximize his effects on the NBA court. Carter transitioned from superstar to role player and is more interested in being an ordinary junkie rather than winning.

So stats-no stats, objectively you sieze Ray Allen's career any day.

The difference is between rank 50 and rank 70. So, seemingly minor in terms of production and even results, but major in terms of career strategy.

[LA Bird]

Carter transitioned from superstar to role player and is more interested in being an ordinary junkie rather than winning.

You say this like it's a negative that a superstar would check his ego in his later years and accept a smaller role on the team. Did Allen himself not transition from a star to a role player in his final years? Besides, 13/14 Carter > 13/14 Allen. If Carter had signed with the championship Heat team in 2012 instead of the championship Mavs team in 2011 and Allen had stayed on the declining Celtics, you would probably be talking about how much better Carter was as a bench player.

Ray Allen ranks higher than Carter for career because he was better for the most part during their overlapping prime. It has nothing to do with him "chasing what is considered as being successful". David West is not a better player now that he chased rings and won 2 on the Warriors playing 12 minutes a game.

[mikejames23]

Carter transitioned from superstar to role player and is more interested in being an ordinary junkie rather than winning.

You say this like it's a negative that a superstar would check his ego in his later years and accept a smaller role on the team. Did Allen himself not transition from a star to a role player in his final years? Besides, 13/14 Carter > 13/14 Allen. If Carter had signed with the championship Heat team in 2012 instead of the championship Mavs team in 2011 and Allen had stayed on the declining Celtics, you would probably be talking about how much better Carter was as a bench player.

Ray Allen ranks higher than Carter for career because he was better for the most part during their overlapping prime. It has nothing to do with him "chasing what is considered as being successful". David West is not a better player now that he chased rings and won 2 on the Warriors playing 12 minutes a game.

That reasoning doesn't work. It's sort of like replacing Vince Carter's brain with yours. All talents were maximized. He played it perfectly, and ended up having an inferior role to Ray Allen.


David West I suspect was about as good of a player as what Ray Allen had left. IMO this is why Ray Allen has a career IQ of 180 or so.

[henshao]

An interesting point about Vince Carter in this particular discussion is that he hit a great many more 3 pointers than I think people realize.

[dhsilv2]

I have never seen anyone give Walton any credit for his rings on the celtics. He gets credit for being a quality player for them, but no the ring has never been added to his resume as a value add. Nor should it.

U missed my ENTIRE POINT! My point was some legends SWALLOW their pride and will play a lesser role ON TALENTED TEAMS to win rings late in their career. And make valuable contributions. Ray, McAdoo, and Walton all fit that bill. When u look at their resume, THOSE RINGS are a part of it! THE DAMN QUESTION was who is the better player GOAT wise Ray or Vince. I said Ray because GOAT STATUS is your ENTIRE RESUME! So listed elements of Ray's resume. When IN THE HELL did I EVER SAY Ray's ring with the Heat was the BE ALL END ALL??? He won a ring with Boston as an All Star in his prime BEFORE THAT! I just stated IN GENERAL Ray was a 10 time All Star, won two rings, is a top 5 shooter of all time, and has a bit more longevity than Vince being a GREAT PLAYER! Those are FACTS! I stated Ray's resume in a nutshell BECAUSE the question was WHOSE the better player GOAT wise!!!

I missed nothing there. You're overinflating the value of rings in this context. Rings matter VERY little (see I can randomly cap too) when discussing these types of players. They honestly don't mean a lot at the top end either, but with guys like Ray and Vince they are almost completely meaningless.