# Ray Allen vs. Reggie Miller



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Two of the most prolific 3 point shooters in league history, both very clutch. Ray has a ring Reggie doesnt.. who you got?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I'd rather have Reggie on my team, but Ray was probably the better player. He was the better passer, rebounder, scorer.

Reggie had two extra inches on him, and turned the ball over a lot less.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Reggie never had KG or Pierce to help him win a ring. People seem to always want to remember Reggie for his flaws rather than what he was good at. He wasn't only a 3 point shooter, he used screens as good as anyone to get open and take the easy shot. He was very good at getting the open shot or getting to the net, where if he didn't score, sadly he was one of the greatest floppers in the league and would go to the line.

Ray was far more athletic, and a better rebounder. But I would take Reggie.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

In a Player vs Player comparison I typically like to leave out team accomplishments. I don't forget about them, but they play a lot smaller part than they do when discussing things like GOAT/MVP/All-NBA Teams.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

Their career numbers are close, but I remember well how Reggie couldn't actually guard anyone, ever. For that reason, as well as the fact that at 6'7 he could never even grab 4 rebounds per game, my nod goes to Ray.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Krstic All Star said:


> Their career numbers are close, but I remember well how Reggie couldn't actually guard anyone, ever. For that reason, as well as the fact that at 6'7 he could never even grab 4 rebounds per game, my nod goes to Ray.


He was an average defender, not good, but not bad.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

Close, real close. Miller actually was adequate defensively. Not all world, but he certainly had effort on that side. I can't say. It's too close to call. I'm gonna leave out the ring because KG and Pierce are far better than anything he ever played with.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Close players and from a PER perspective Ray Allen's average beats out Miller by a full PER point or so....however I still go with Reggie since he played in an arguably tougher NBA ruleswise and players.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

I think Ray Allen in his absolute prime was a better all-around offensive player and a slightly better defensive player. That being said, Reggie's prime was very long and productive. Despite how some people might feel, I don't think Reggie was ever much more "clutch" than Ray. I'll give the slight nod to Ray Ray.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Ray Allen is the better player.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Krstic All Star said:


> Their career numbers are close, but I remember well how Reggie couldn't actually guard anyone, ever.


Reggie guarded top-level Shooting Guards during the '90's (including Michael Jordan) and did so adequately. Certainly not an all-league defender, but he could hold his own and he wasn't a guy who was going to let you drop 40 on him unless he'd drop 50 on you.

That said, I'd still take Allen. Better ball handler, passer (And Reggie was a good passer, too), defensive player, and he can create his own shot better. That plus a ring gives him the edge.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

It's Miller time.

Madison Square Garden 1995.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

this is kind of a tough choice. kind of like old love vs new love. i guess i'll go with ray ray but reggie miller was one of my favorite players before ray allen. reggie miller's clutch performances in playoffs are the best i've ever seen. i would take some of his clutch performances over jordan's, and i like jordan.

i take ray because he's kind of an "evolved" reggie miller. you take miller's clutch shooting, and you make him more athletic and ability to slash, create his own shot, and pull off some of the most ridiculous finesse layups. it's tough to beat reggie's clutch performance in madison square garden but ray ray's performance in last year's finals was pretty memorable too. my jaws dropped when he did that sweet reverse layup beating 3 of the top lakers in one play(kobe, pau, odom, in this order).


----------



## Fray (Dec 19, 2005)

This comparison gets on my nerves. Reggie Miller was a great shooter but he is getting highly overrated. He should never be in the hall of fame or be compared to Ray Allen who was pretty much better than him at every facet of the game.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Fray said:


> This comparison gets on my nerves. Reggie Miller was a great shooter but he is getting highly overrated. He should never be in the hall of fame or be compared to Ray Allen who was pretty much better than him at every facet of the game.


What a stupid thing to say.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

Ray Allen, not a huge gap between the two but Ray was slightly better.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

I am going to take leading a winning team into consideration here. Ray Allen before Boston was on losing teams most of his career, whereas Miller was the main cog on a perennial winner for over a decade. Miller gets my vote here.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Fray said:


> This comparison gets on my nerves. Reggie Miller was a great shooter but he is getting highly overrated. He should never be in the hall of fame or be compared to Ray Allen who was pretty much better than him at every facet of the game.


It's blatantly obvious that you are clueless/biased when it comes to Reggie Miller.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

OneBadLT123 said:


> I am going to take leading a winning team into consideration here. Ray Allen before Boston was on losing teams most of his career, whereas Miller was the main cog on a perennial winner for over a decade. Miller gets my vote here.


Ray Allen as the "man" also lead Milwaukee the conferance finals and seattle to a 50 win season before he went to Boston


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

roux2dope said:


> Ray Allen as the "man" also lead Milwaukee the conferance finals and seattle to a 50 win season before he went to Boston


Reggie also had a 56 win season as the man, and went to the finals. People seem to forget that.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

R-Star said:


> Reggie also had a 56 win season as the man, and went to the finals. People seem to forget that.


Im not, I just think people think Ray couldnt win till he got to Boston, The Bucks were a very solid team for a few years as Allen hit his prime, and Seattle turned around almost overnight with his arival. Reggie's Pacers were more consistant there is no doubting that but Ray gets a bad rep for some reason


----------



## lakeshows (Mar 17, 2009)

R-Star said:


> Reggie also had a 56 win season as the man, and went to the finals. People seem to forget that.


Reggie was the man? Since when? There were always players who were better on the Pacers from Jalen Rose to Ron Artest to Jermain O'neal to Rik Smits to Chris Mullin.

Reggie was never the man. He was always a role player. Allen was however the man on his Seattle teams and also was with his Milwaukee teams.

Ray Allen is a far greater player. As mentioned in almost every post he's a better scorer, passer, defender, ball handler, and it's close as to who has a better jump shot. 

Reggie was one of the most clutch performers in the last 20 years, but let's not get carried away. I too was a huge fan of Reggie's growing up in NY and hating the Knicks. I loved it everytime he destroyed the hopes and dreams of Knick fans. But seriously let's not get carried away.

The better comparison for Reggie is Rip Hamilton. They are in the same league. Ray Allen is not.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

lakeshows said:


> Reggie was the man? Since when? There were always players who were better on the Pacers from Jalen Rose to Ron Artest to Jermain O'neal to Rik Smits to Chris Mullin.


.....what?


The only time Artest and O'Neal were better than Reggie on a successful team was the 61 win season back in '03-'04. Otherwise, none of those guys were ever better than Reggie Miller at any time.




> Reggie was never the man. He was always a role player. Allen was however the man on his Seattle teams and also was with his Milwaukee teams.


Uh, no. Going to a guy to shoot the ball almost every play and having 20 or so different plays, maybe more, just for him to get open, makes him the man.



> The better comparison for Reggie is Rip Hamilton. They are in the same league. Ray Allen is not.


Let me know when Rip keeps an entire team alive and in the NBA as its best player for 12-14 years. Please. The Pacers wouldn't exist right now if Reggie Miller hadn't been drafted.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

lakeshows said:


> Reggie was the man? Since when? There were always players who were better on the Pacers from Jalen Rose to Ron Artest to Jermain O'neal to Rik Smits to Chris Mullin.
> 
> Reggie was never the man. He was always a role player. Allen was however the man on his Seattle teams and also was with his Milwaukee teams.
> 
> ...


I agree that Allen was better but calling Miller is "role player" is absurd. He was without question that best player on his team for over a decade. He was the focus of every opponent's defensive gameplan. Since when is a "role player" the focus of anyone's gameplan? He was mediocre to average defensively and on the glass and in the passing department but he was a tremendous shooter and scorer. He was close to a 50% shooter all the time during his prime and that is amazing for a guy that lives on the perimeter. Allen was the better all around player but Miller was the best shooter and one of the best crunch time players I've ever seen.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

lakeshows said:


> Reggie was the man? Since when? There were always players who were better on the Pacers from Jalen Rose to Ron Artest to Jermain O'neal to Rik Smits to Chris Mullin.
> 
> Reggie was never the man. He was always a role player. Allen was however the man on his Seattle teams and also was with his Milwaukee teams.
> 
> ...


Possibly one of the dumbest posts I've ever read.

Congrats. I question your intelligence.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

Ray Allen, and it's not even close. His ballhandling ability alone puts him over the top, and when you add his passing, defense (not good, but better than Reggie), rebounding (ditto) and overall scoring ability, it's a downright unfair comparison. People talk about the jump shot, but Allen is easily better anywhere inside the 3-point line, and you could argue that he's a better 3-point shooter as well. 

Reggie does get points for succeeding with some very average teams, but Allen's success with the bucks and sonics was tremendous as well. The only area where Reggie was clearly better was in clutch play. But put it this way: for 7/8 of the game, I'd take Allen over Reggie no questions asked.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Sliccat said:


> Ray Allen, and it's not even close. His ballhandling ability alone puts him over the top, and when you add his passing, defense (not good, but better than Reggie), rebounding (ditto) and overall scoring ability, it's a downright unfair comparison. People talk about the jump shot, but Allen is easily better anywhere inside the 3-point line, and you could argue that he's a better 3-point shooter as well.
> 
> Reggie does get points for succeeding with some very average teams, but Allen's success with the bucks and sonics was tremendous as well. The only area where Reggie was clearly better was in clutch play. But put it this way: for 7/8 of the game, I'd take Allen over Reggie no questions asked.


Quit reading your post after you said you could argue hes a better shooter.

You guys are all Reggie Miller haters. Hate a little harder guys.



....I hate you all


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

The thing is, I'm willing to bet very few of us dislike him at all. We just don't swing off his nuts like you do.


----------



## Fray (Dec 19, 2005)

I'm not biased against Reggie Miller. The truth is he didn't bring anything to the table other than his shooting. Ray Allen's stats are better across the board. Reggie also played no defense and never won a title. What exactly merits him to be considered for the hall? And what could he do better than Allen?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Sliccat said:


> The thing is, I'm willing to bet very few of us dislike him at all. We just don't swing off his nuts like you do.


I feel safe there......

Sometimes Cheryl Miller comes and give me a high 5.

**** Ray Allen.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Fray said:


> I'm not biased against Reggie Miller. The truth is he didn't bring anything to the table other than his shooting. Ray Allen's stats are better across the board. Reggie also played no defense and never won a title. What exactly merits him to be considered for the hall? And what could he do better than Allen?


The other guys are making valid points for Ray Allen.

You and lakeshow are showing obvious bias or blatant ignorance. 

Theres a difference between making justified points for Allen, and being a Miller hater.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

Reggie Miller is a wig away from being a certified *****. He was a good player but never worthy enough of being the MAN on NBA squad. If he was playing now he'd be a lankier Rip Hamilton still with NO RINGS. He's a glorified roleplayer and no where near the God Indiana fans imagine him as. They'd be better off praising the corn field Larry Bird was born in than bringing his name up in a best NBA player conversation. I mean who's sister is tougher than them in the paint?????? :nonono:

Ray Allen has hardware because he was able to take his Reggie Miller like skill set to a team and not continue chunking up 20-30 shots. Call it loyalty... but had Miller left the wasteland known as Indiana to join a team that boasted more than Rik Smits at center in Jordan's era, he wouldn't have the no championship knock on him.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LionOfJudah said:


> Reggie Miller is a wig away from being a certified *****. He was a good player but never worthy enough of being the MAN on NBA squad. If he was playing now he'd be a lankier Rip Hamilton still with NO RINGS. He's a glorified roleplayer and no where near the God Indiana fans imagine him as. They'd be better off praising the corn field Larry Bird was born in than bringing his name up in a best NBA player conversation. I mean who's sister is tougher than them in the paint?????? :nonono:
> 
> Ray Allen has hardware because he was able to take his Reggie Miller like skill set to a team and not continue chunking up 20-30 shots. Call it loyalty... but had Miller left the wasteland known as Indiana to join a team that boasted more than Rik Smits at center in Jordan's era, he wouldn't have the no championship knock on him.


I know you don't mean that. No one could mean that. Leading a team to 56 wins to fight the Lakers in the finals (and I mean the real prime kick the **** out of the Blazers and Kings Lakers, not the Karl Malone, Gary Payton Lakers) is nothing to shake a stick at. 

Miller is a HOF player.

You don't mean that.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

R-Star said:


> I know you don't mean that. No one could mean that. Leading a team to 56 wins to fight the Lakers in the finals (and I mean the real prime kick the **** out of the Blazers and Kings Lakers, not the Karl Malone, Gary Payton Lakers) is nothing to shake a stick at.
> 
> Miller is a HOF player.
> 
> You don't mean that.


Where would he be in today's game? 

Jordan was a freak for the 90s but now, almost two decades past both players everyone is a freak. Reggie would be a better Rip. And it's not like he lead teams with his D or rebounding. He's very one dimensional. As good as that dimension is he's still not as a complete player as Allen.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LionOfJudah said:


> Where would he be in today's game?
> 
> Jordan was a freak for the 90s but now, almost two decades past both players everyone is a freak. Reggie would be a better Rip. And it's not like he lead teams with his D or rebounding. He's very one dimensional. As good as that dimension is he's still not as a complete player as Allen.


Why would a SG lead his team in rebounding? 

Also, if you think its harder for players now than it was in the 90's, you obviously didn't watch the 90's. 

I don't think many people will agree its harder now than it was in the 90's.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

R-Star said:


> Why would a SG lead his team in rebounding?
> 
> Also, if you think its harder for players now than it was in the 90's, you obviously didn't watch the 90's.
> 
> I don't think many people will agree its harder now than it was in the 90's.


Evey decade the players get a little bigger, and every decade the rules get a little tighter, alot of fouls in 2005 wouldnt have been called in 95, so its a weird mix


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

This is an absolutely unbelievable thread...

All that I've learned thus far is that apparently half of this forum wasn't watching basketball in the 1990's. 

Need to win a game? Give me Reggie Miller.

- and did someone really just say that an aging 10 ppg Chris Mullin was better on the Pacers than Reggie Miller or have I lost my ****ing mind?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dornado said:


> This is an absolutely unbelievable thread...
> 
> All that I've learned thus far is that apparently half of this forum wasn't watching basketball in the 1990's.
> 
> ...


I've been pulling my hair out in here. Thank you.

I'm not trying to say its a no brainer. This is a toss up pick. But for some to come in and say "Ray Allen easily. Reggie could shoot 3's and that's it, and I'm not sure if he was even better than Ray at that." drives me insane. If you didn't watch 90's or early 2000 ball, don't post in this thread. Its not a hard concept.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

R-Star said:


> I've been pulling my hair out in here. Thank you.
> 
> I'm not trying to say its a no brainer. This is a toss up pick. But for some to come in and say "Ray Allen easily. Reggie could shoot 3's and that's it, and I'm not sure if he was even better than Ray at that." drives me insane. If you didn't watch 90's or early 2000 ball, don't post in this thread. Its not a hard concept.


Exactly... if anything it is a great player comparison... not a landslide in either direction.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

LionOfJudah said:


> He was a good player but never worthy enough of being the MAN on NBA squad.


Then please explain to me why, as the MAN on the Pacers, for 12 years, he helped them reach the most playoff appearances besides Utah and San Antonio? Explain to me how, as the MAN, he almost beat the Jordan Bulls, won 56 games, and took the Lakers to 6 games in the finals? Explain to me how, as the MAN, he almost single-handedly beat the Knicks on numerous occasions.



> I mean who's sister is tougher than them in the paint?????? :nonono:


You need to watch the aged, past-his-prime Reggie dunking on the Nets in the playoffs in overtime after he hit the 40 footer to even get that far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIdK1CAeUSc



> Ray Allen has hardware because he was able to take his Reggie Miller like skill set to a team and not continue chunking up 20-30 shots.


Explain to me how you call it "chucking" when Reggie has one of the best field goal percentages and best true shot percentages for a guard in NBA history.



> Call it loyalty... but had Miller left the wasteland known as Indiana to join a team that boasted more than Rik Smits at center in Jordan's era, he wouldn't have the no championship knock on him.


Indiana is hardly a wasteland, and know that I do not appreciate you throwing random, pointless shots at my state.

The Pacers weren't that great a team. Reggie never had a 2nd superstar to help him out, but he had a bunch of 3rd option type guys who contributed. You know, Mark Jackson, Jalen Rose, Rik Smits, and Chris Mullin just to name a few from the late '90's. Then the Davis brothers as well on the glass. If anything, your degrading of the Pacers team makes it even more unbelievable that Reggie did what he did. Thanks.



> Where would he be in today's game?


Probably a lot better because teams wouldn't be able to hack the **** out of him and hold him. Regggie would be going to the line almost 10 times/game because of how much more of a ***** game the NBA is now than it was in the '90's. You might call him lanky, but Reggie Miller was one tough mother****er.


To those mentioning Ray Allen's Bucks teams, you're forgetting about Sam Cassell and Glenn Robinson, who were both better players than anyone Reggie ever had.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

Pacers Fan said:


> Then please explain to me why, as the MAN on the Pacers, for 12 years, he helped them reach the most playoff appearances besides Utah and San Antonio? Explain to me how, as the MAN, he almost beat the Jordan Bulls, won 56 games, and took the Lakers to 6 games in the finals? Explain to me how, as the MAN, he almost single-handedly beat the Knicks on numerous occasions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So at one point you're saying he was the man and had little help then go on to defend that team when I say something less than complementary about them.

Sorry, Mark Jackson > Sam Cassell as a PG and you can't even name the Buck's front court outside of Overrated Dog Robinson. I'd take the two Davises over any front court Allen's played with prior to being traded to the Celtics.







Put Miller on one of the Rocket teams featuring Hakeem and both have more rings than they do now. He's just be then stuck with the, "he didn't do it without a Center" tag which is easily forgotten compared to the never won a championship.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

LionOfJudah said:


> So at one point you're saying he was the man and had little help then go on to defend that team when I say something less than complementary about them.


I can say the exact same thing about you. You say that Reggie had no help, yet he went as far as he did, which says a lot about him as player. Point is that Reggie had a good supporting cast, but he didn't have the 2nd option the Pacers needed to win a title. Looking back, I'm still surprised the old, aging, unathletic 2000 Pacers team even made the finals, but when people start throwing cheap shots at my state or my team, I'm not going to let that stand.



> Sorry, Mark Jackson > Sam Cassell as a PG and you can't even name the Buck's front court outside of Overrated Dog Robinson. I'd take the two Davises over any front court Allen's played with prior to being traded to the Celtics.


I would probably take Mark Jackson over Cassell on my team just because I like passing PG's more than scoring PG's, but Cassell gave the Bucks a lot more firepower. Not only did he have peak years around 20 ppg, but he also averaged 8-9 assists a few years. The point is that the Bucks had 3 20 ppg scorers back in the early 2000's and they still didn't do ****. The Pacers never had that kind of firepower. Reggie took them places they never should've gone.

Ervin Johnson, Tim Thomas, Tyrone Hill, and Anthony Mason aren't great, but provided, for the most part, what Indy's Centers and Power Forwards did besides Smits's scoring.



> Put Miller on one of the Rocket teams featuring Hakeem and both have more rings than they do now. He's just be then stuck with the, "he didn't do it without a Center" tag which is easily forgotten compared to the never won a championship.


We can both agree on this statement, but I don't think you even have to give Reggie Hakeem to win him a ring. The only person he ever had close to a sidekick besides Chuck Person was Jalen Rose in 2000.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

Pacers Fan said:


> I can say the exact same thing about you. You say that Reggie had no help, yet he went as far as he did, which says a lot about him as player. Point is that Reggie had a good supporting cast, but he didn't have the 2nd option the Pacers needed to win a title. Looking back, I'm still surprised the old, aging, unathletic 2000 Pacers team even made the finals, but when people start throwing cheap shots at my state or my team, I'm not going to let that stand.


Cheap shots? I call it cold hard truths 

If we were having an all time NBA fantasy draft I'd take Ray Allen over Miller every day of the week and twice on Sunday. 

How many non Pacer fans would do the same?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LionOfJudah said:


> Cheap shots? I call it cold hard truths
> 
> If we were having an all time NBA fantasy draft I'd take Ray Allen over Miller every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
> 
> How many non Pacer fans would do the same?


That's a good question. How many times have you been repped in this thread for what you have wrote, and how many times have I?

Its obvious you didn't watch ball in the 90's.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

R-Star said:


> That's a good question. How many times have you been repped in this thread for what you have wrote, and how many times have I?
> 
> Its obvious you didn't watch ball in the 90's.


Fine I'll join the Reggie/Pacer fan circle jerk and completely ignore the fact the game has evolved in the past 10 years. Reggie Miller is better than his sister. There. I said it.

Where's my lame Pacer fan rep?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LionOfJudah said:


> Fine I'll join the Reggie/Pacer fan circle jerk and completely ignore the fact the game has evolved in the past 10 years. Reggie Miller is better than his sister. There. I said it.
> 
> Where's my lame Pacer fan rep?


I was repped by regular posters for pointing out your blatant misunderstanding of 90's basketball, not by Pacers fans.

The game has become easier over the past 10 years, not harder. Reggie would if anything play better if he played today.

I have also been repped for pointing out that it's a valid player comparison where you could argue for either player. You're posts show blatant Miller hate.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

R-Star said:


> I was repped by regular posters for pointing out your blatant misunderstanding of 90's basketball, not by Pacers fans.
> 
> The game has become easier over the past 10 years, not harder. Reggie would if anything play better if he played today.
> 
> I have also been repped for pointing out that it's a valid player comparison where you could argue for either player. You're posts show blatant Miller hate.


These links are blatant Miller hate too:
Where's Reggie Wayne on this list?
Ray>Reggie.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

LionOfJudah said:


> If we were having an all time NBA fantasy draft I'd take Ray Allen over Miller every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
> 
> How many non Pacer fans would do the same?


I think you're forgetting that I'd take Allen over Reggie as well. But it's not a decidedly lopsided comparison. They're both very close, but I would still rather have Allen most of the time.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

Pacers Fan said:


> I think you're forgetting that I'd take Allen over Reggie as well. But it's not a decidedly lopsided comparison. They're both very close, but I would still rather have Allen most of the time.


:clap:

I'm always a fan of more complete/versatile players. Reggie had his glory and ruined Spike Lee's nights plenty of times (which always made me smile seeing that lil NY ***** stfu) but it doesn't make him better than Ray.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LionOfJudah said:


> These links are blatant Miller hate too:
> Where's Reggie Wayne on this list?
> Ray>Reggie.


Nice stats. You do realize Reggie is 10 years older than Ray Allen correct? Take away the final 3 years of Reggies playoff stats and get back to me.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Nice stats. You do realize Reggie is 10 years older than Ray Allen correct? Take away the final 3 years of Reggies playoff stats and get back to me.


Ray could have 3 times the number of rings by then too. Then it really will be a landslide.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LionOfJudah said:


> Ray could have 3 times the number of rings by then too. Then it really will be a landslide.


Awesome. Lets make this a hypotheticals thread.

And with the big 3 getting old, in short, no, no Ray couldn't.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Awesome. Lets make this a hypotheticals thread.
> 
> And with the big 3 getting old, in short, no, no Ray couldn't.


So by taking the last 3 years off Reggie's career averages does that make him a more complete player than Ray Allen?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LionOfJudah said:


> So by taking the last 3 years off Reggie's career averages does that make him a more complete player than Ray Allen?


It takes off his twilight years, years Ray Allen has yet to play yet, seeing as how he is, you know, 10 years younger like I explained earlier.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

LionOfJudah said:


> Ray could have 3 times the number of rings by then too. Then it really will be a landslide.


You're really an idiot. Put 3x0 into a calculator sometime and get the **** out of the thread. You embarrass the people who agree with you.

I watched enough 90's basketball to remember Reggie's games against the late bulls, and enough to see him, Jax and Rose absolutely destroy my favorite team twice. And I've hated Ray Allen for a long time. But anybody who doesn't think their jumpers are in the same league is just as much a biased moron as this *******.

By the way, the Zone rules would absolutely make Reggie a better player now, especially when he was the 1a scorer on the team. Add in the stricter no-touch rules, and it's a no-brainer.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Sliccat said:


> You're really an idiot. Put 3x0 into a calculator sometime and get the **** out of the thread. You embarrass the people who agree with you.
> 
> I watched enough 90's basketball to remember Reggie's games against the late bulls, and enough to see him, Jax and Rose absolutely destroy my favorite team twice. And I've hated Ray Allen for a long time. But anybody who doesn't think their jumpers are in the same league is just as much a biased moron as this *******.
> 
> By the way, the Zone rules would absolutely make Reggie a better player now, especially when he was the 1a scorer on the team. Add in the stricter no-touch rules, and it's a no-brainer.


Reggie's biggest plus on shooting though is that hes probably one of the greatest at running screens and getting open.

Not trying to discredit Ray as a shooter. Hes one of the best. I just view Reggie as the best pure shooter to ever play.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

R-Star said:


> It takes off his twilight years, years Ray Allen has yet to play yet, seeing as how he is, you know, 10 years younger like I explained earlier.


:|

So even if Reggie is your guy, you won't give any concessions to Ray Allen for being a more complete player or is he just terrible because he wasn't a life long pacer?

I honestly like Reggie as a player but can't stand to hear him call games or play analyst with Charles and Kenny. It's painful.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)




----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Did someone just refer to big dog as overrated?


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

roux2dope said:


> Did someone just refer to big dog as overrated?


I'm just pissing off all the midwesterners today.. 

Yes, over-rated dog. I'm a fan of the guy but he never developed into a super star like I thought he had the potential to do. :whoknows:


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

LionOfJudah said:


> I'm just pissing off all the midwesterners today..
> 
> Yes, over-rated dog. I'm a fan of the guy but he never developed into a super star like I thought he had the potential to do. :whoknows:


I think you need to re-examine the definition of overrated... just because you thought he was going to be better doesn't qualify him... if anything Robinson has been underrated based on the high hopes people had for him early in his career.

Also, I'll take a prime Sammy Cassell over a prime Mark Jackson.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

Dornado said:


> I think you need to re-examine the definition of overrated... just because you thought he was going to be better doesn't qualify him... if anything Robinson has been underrated based on the high hopes people had for him early in his career.
> 
> Also, I'll take a prime Sammy Cassell over a prime Mark Jackson.


If people are going to consider his and Sam Cassell's presence is more better than the supporting cast Reggie had during the Pacers' playoff runs then both are very overrated.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

LionOfJudah said:


> I'm just pissing off all the midwesterners today..
> 
> Yes, over-rated dog. I'm a fan of the guy but he never developed into a super star like I thought he had the potential to do. :whoknows:


superstar no, but 20 and 7 on his career a couple of all star games and a trip to the eastern conferance finals. Big Dog was a damn good player but was overshadowed as a #1 pick because of the success of Hill and Kidd from that draft


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

LionOfJudah said:


> If people are going to consider his and Sam Cassell's presence is more better than the supporting cast Reggie had during the Pacers' playoff runs then both are very overrated.


I always thought those Pacers teams were very well built... hard to compare them... Cassell and Robinson were probably better individually than the guys Miller was playing with, but the Bucks lacked the depth and balance that those Indiana teams had.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Dornado said:


> I always thought those Pacers teams were very well built... hard to compare them... Cassell and Robinson were probably better individually than the guys Miller was playing with, but the Bucks lacked the depth and balance that those Indiana teams had.


and the defense


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

Dornado said:


> I always thought those Pacers teams were very well built... hard to compare them... Cassell and Robinson were probably better individually than the guys Miller was playing with, but the Bucks lacked the depth and balance that those Indiana teams had.


Neither of them were better than Rose. And Jackson and Davis were about as good, then.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

Sliccat said:


> Neither of them were better than Rose. And Jackson and Davis were about as good, then.


Reggie had better supporting cast around him that's for sure. Talented role players, building blocks for a good playoff team. While the Bucks and Sonics were a few talented players with a mixed bag of role players talented enough to win in the regular season but a whole tier below what Reggie had to work with comparing the teams and not just starting 5s.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Sliccat said:


> Neither of them were better than Rose. And Jackson and Davis were about as good, then.


I would disagree on basically every one of those. Indiana had more good players, I think, but Cassell and Big Dog individually are probably better than any of the Pacer supporting crew.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Sliccat said:


> Neither of them were better than Rose. And Jackson and Davis were about as good, then.


Robinson was a more consistant scorer and a better rebounder than Rose... Rose was solid but the Big Dog was better


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LionOfJudah said:


> If people are going to consider his and Sam Cassell's presence is more better than the supporting cast Reggie had during the Pacers' playoff runs then both are very overrated.


"more better"?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Sliccat said:


> Neither of them were better than Rose. And Jackson and Davis were about as good, then.


I'm probably one of the worlds biggest Rose fans, but he was not better than Glen Robinson. Jackson was a quality point guard, but the fact his best year was his rookie season shouldn't be overlooked. Cassel was a very good point guard on the Bucks. There's a reason they were called the big 3. When Reggie was in his prime, he never had players of the caliber to have a "big 3". 

I will agree the Pacers were always a very deep team, with top defense though. Having a guy like Sam Perkins and a Davis brother coming off the bench was always a huge strength for them. I still believe if they didn't trade Antonio Davis for Jon Bender, the would have taken the Lakers in the finals.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

roux2dope said:


> Robinson was a more consistant scorer and a better rebounder than Rose... Rose was solid but the Big Dog was better


The only thing Rose had on Big Dog was versatility and passing. He could play the 1 to 3.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

People considered that the Bucks "big three"... not Ray Allen and a supporting cast...


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

R-Star said:


> "more better"?


Yeah, it's pronounced mo betta in most Southern states. Still a lil alcohol in the system after last night that early in the morning apparently. 

As for "big 3" vs a well built defensive team that's 8 to 9 players deep.... I'll take the balanced deeper team to win a playoff series or two over almost any big 3 that doesn't have formidable front court. 

R-Star brings up a point, Reggie's prime wasn't spent wisely. His loyalty to Indiana cost him the chance at a championship in retrospect but can't knock a guy for it. Now you can knock him for being a crappy analyst tho.


----------



## TheVincanity (Sep 27, 2009)

hard RAY RAY and Reggie both are great shooters but ray got more assists while reggie had a slightly better clutch. I cant help remebering how ray helped the celts overcome the bulls in 7 those clutch 3s man i do love ray. Reggie had those great freethrows though. But I still pick Ray over Miller


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

I'm going to pick Reggie just for nostalgia reasons. He was one of my all time favorites.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Reggie Miller.

and [email protected] comments like "Ray was a"

Ray would be upset if he heard people talk like that


----------



## Babe Ruth (Dec 6, 2006)

Bumping this thread.

If you posted in this thread before - have your thoughts changed?

Who's had the better career?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ray in his prime was better , and he was certainly the more conventional and versatile guard, 

reggie you could almost guarantee wins if he was being guarded by someone who didn't like to fight through screens, 

ray wins the test of time though, he would have been successful on those pacer teams too...but i'm not sure reggie could have been as successful on those bucks and sonics teams, with their finesse bigs (vin baker and rashard lewis just aren't capable of being the kind of pick setters that dale and antonio davis were) it would have meant he would have had to create his own shot more and create more for others and he wasn't as good at that.


----------



## dreamwarrior (Jul 1, 2013)

Ray was one of my favorite players ever. I followed his career from college and although he only showed glimpses of superstardom, he became a pretty good all around player. I think Ray had more talent but Reggie fulfilled his own potential and was one of the best leaders of any team whereas Ray never took the leadership role. Ray's accomplishments beyond the arc will never be matched. Just look at the height at which he gets on every 3pt attempt. Compare that to Curry who shoots 3's with a minimal jump. Ray was ready to shoot over any defender while Curry has open looks to thank for his record. That's one thing the stats don't tell you. Same deal with Horry. The only guy I see getting similar air on 3's is Danny Green. But you know, Reggie was more fun to watch than Ray. And he's one of the guys I hated the most because he was pretty much unstoppable in the clutch. One of the scariest thing is watching your team up by just 2-5 in the 4th against Reggie Miller.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> ray in his prime was better , and he was certainly the more conventional and versatile guard,
> 
> reggie you could almost guarantee wins if he was being guarded by someone who didn't like to fight through screens,
> 
> ray wins the test of time though, he would have been successful on those pacer teams too...but i'm not sure reggie could have been as successful on those bucks and sonics teams, with their finesse bigs (vin baker and rashard lewis just aren't capable of being the kind of pick setters that dale and antonio davis were) it would have meant he would have had to create his own shot more and create more for others and he wasn't as good at that.


Ray was playing with Scott Williams and Ervin Johnson when the Bucks were good.. both guys were great screen setters for Ray, Sam and Big Dog


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Ray Allen


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

roux said:


> Ray was playing with Scott Williams and Ervin Johnson when the Bucks were good.. both guys were great screen setters for Ray, Sam and Big Dog


that was like 1 year that ervin johnson even played 2000 minutes, or won more than 42 games ,they really weren't out there as much as indy's main pick setters 

its not the same as having antonio davis , dale davis rik smits to run around and before that they were starting guys like greg dreiling and lasalle thompson before smit's offense came around, the pacers were built with a physicality in mind that few teams were


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> that was like 1 year that ervin johnson even played 2000 minutes, or won more than 42 games ,they really weren't out there as much as indy's main pick setters
> 
> its not the same as having antonio davis , dale davis rik smits to run around and before that they were starting guys like greg dreiling and lasalle thompson before smit's offense came around, the pacers were built with a physicality in mind that few teams were


Thats true, Indy was able to keep that core around Reggie for a long time, a core that was basically built to enhance Millers game


----------



## Mamba v2.0 (May 27, 2013)

Reggie was a more fundamentally sound player. Ray was more of a traditonal shooting guard. I bet if you put the two in a foot race, reggie would blow the doors off of Ray. Ray Allen is a good shooter, and a 1st ballot hall of famer, but he is no reggie miller...Jordan hated playing aganist reggie more than anyone. jordan could guard Ray Allen easily.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Mamba v2.0 said:


> Reggie was a more fundamentally sound player. Ray was more of a traditonal shooting guard. I bet if you put the two in a foot race, reggie would blow the doors off of Ray. *Ray Allen is a good shooter*, and a 1st ballot hall of famer, but he is no reggie miller...Jordan hated playing aganist reggie more than anyone. jordan could guard Ray Allen easily.


Just a good shooter? Log out.


----------

