"Poll question: Better Player & Career: Vince or Ray?"
who you got?
Vince Carter:
8× NBA All-Star (2000–2007) All-NBA Second Team (2001) All-NBA Third Team (2000) NBA Rookie of the Year (1999) NBA All-Rookie First Team (1999) NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion (2000)
Ray Allen:
2× NBA champion (2008, 2013) 10× NBA All-Star (2000–2002, 2004–2009, 2011) All-NBA Second Team (2005) All-NBA Third Team (2001) NBA All-Rookie Second Team (1997) NBA Sportsmanship Award (2003) NBA Three-Point Shootout champion (2001) NBA all-time leader in three-pointers made
dula dibiasi Member since Apr 05th 2004 21925 posts
Wed Sep-30-15 10:04 AM
14. "actually, ray was a more efficient scorer, and that's it." In response to Reply # 1
on both ends vince was more athletic, more dynamic, and more versatile. better rebounder, better playmaker, better handler, better defender.
___
it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes
it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes
21. "More efficient scorer, better shooter, more consistent, etc" In response to Reply # 14 Wed Sep-30-15 10:57 AM by ConcreteCharlie
He had those edges more clearly than Vince had his and let's not act like anyone was confusing Vince for Michael Cooper at the defensive end or Steve Nash when he had the pill up top. He has slight edges in a few such categories but nothing that jumps off the page or pushes the argument(s) in his favor.
You also have to look at consistency and longevity as a package deal. On sheer number of seasons played I guess they are the same but Vince had a huge lull in the middle of his career that Ray didn't and Ray's game translated much better into the waning years of his career.
And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
dula dibiasi Member since Apr 05th 2004 21925 posts
Wed Sep-30-15 03:53 PM
28. "consistency, longevity, aging gracefully, etc" In response to Reply # 21
are all "better career" criteria imo
and i think everyone agrees that ray had the better career.
but ask me who was a better player in their respective primes, and i take vince by a smidge. really close tho.
vince wasn't as good a defender as coop or as good a playmaker as nash. still better than ray at both.
___
it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes
dula dibiasi Member since Apr 05th 2004 21925 posts
Wed Sep-30-15 04:55 PM
33. "thought you meant season to season consistency" In response to Reply # 31
game to game? definitely ray. dude was steady as they come.
___
it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes
Frank Longo Member since Nov 18th 2003 86676 posts
Tue Sep-29-15 01:56 PM
3. "You can't argue that Vince had a better career. That's inarguable." In response to Reply # 0
I suppose you could argue he was the better player... I would disagree, but that's such a wildly subjective argument that it's hard to definitively state that someone would be "wrong" one way or another.
But Ray has unquestionably had the better career. There's no real argument against that.
-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.
it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes
-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.
11. "Someone correct me if I'm wrong" In response to Reply # 0
but Ray Allen was more than just a spot up shooter when he played in Milwaukee and Seattle, correct? I vaguely remember him creating off the dribble and not just running for screens like he did in Boston and Miami.
"Sean sparks like John Starks, nah, Sean ball like John Wall" - Rest In Power Forever Sean Price.
23. "people who say Vince was a better player, honest question..." In response to Reply # 0
is it simply because he was more dynamic? Legit asking, cuz I love both. I just think folks (not directing this at anyone in the post) tend to remember Ray for what he was in Boston and Miami. Ray was a motherfucker off the dribble in his younger days. I remember me and my boys made up a phrase for him called "pick up dunk", cuz he would beat someone off the dribble and go baseline, then suddenly rise up and dunk...as if someone just picked him up off the floor. It was smooth and effortless.
...I'm from the era when A.I. was the answer, now they think ai is the answer - Marlon Craft
26. "I think people are over-emphasizing ISO shit though" In response to Reply # 24
Carter was on teams where he got the ball and they said "do something" a lot more than Allen was. Even where Allen dominated the ball a bit more in Seattle, he had other scorers around him and an offense was pretty fluid. Obviously in Milwaukee and Boston he was part of a big three. So he didn't have to do that, but when he did it, he showed he could and very well.
To me Allen is like the ideal two guard, if you have anything close to a traditional or balanced team around him he is a money player. Carter is more the type of player you'd want a bad team or a team that didn't have much scoring.
And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
you can't say they're "a nose" apart, essentially a pick em, and then get all huffy when some ppl go the other way.
___
it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes
32. "A nose is a nose though." In response to Reply # 29
You win by a nose, you still win the race. If anything there is an argument that the margin was wider. Allen was the consummate team player and a model of efficiency, yet he was still able to compete with Vince's production.
You give me either guy at the start of their career and there is no doubt in my mind who I am taking.
And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
>You give me either guy at the start of their career and there >is no doubt in my mind who I am taking.
in their primes, vince imo was better at more aspects of the game. better by a nose, but still better. only edge i'd give ray is outside shooting, allowing him to score more efficiently at a similar volume. vince was better at literally everything else.
___
it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes
37. "I look at basketball sense, too." In response to Reply # 34 Wed Sep-30-15 05:29 PM by ConcreteCharlie
Carter was certainly more spectacular but in terms of timing, having a feel for the game, playing with rhythm and getting open, I give it to Ray. Few guys were better at those things than him. Carter was aggressive and he had the talent to make it work but Allen just had a stronger finger on the pulse. Honestly I would take Allen over any shooting guard of his era that wasn't Kobe or Iverson, and Iverson was not really a traditional shooting guard anyway.
And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
I actually like ray more than vince, just as a player. but looking at it objectively, peak vince did more things better, and imo was slightly better at taking over and dominating a game.
ray was a motherfucker tho. ice water.
___
it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes
47. "I think an East Coast bias" In response to Reply # 27
coupled with the fact those Milwaukee and Seattle teams were many many years ago and the fact Ray Allen in those days wasn't the flashiest of players could be why folks are downplaying how good Ray Allen was before he strictly became a three point shooter in his Boston and Miami Heat years.
"Sean sparks like John Starks, nah, Sean ball like John Wall" - Rest In Power Forever Sean Price.
Ray was a MONSTER back in his Milwaukee/Seattle days. That Milwaukee team with Big Dog and SamIAm was incredible.
I think the "optic" is that Vince carried his team (or franchise) more as Ray had Rashard Lewis in Seattle (and their team was ass), while once T-Mac left Vince still kept Toronto in the playoffs.
Can't say overall Vince was better, because Ray was a way better defender, and electric in his own right. But it's very very close.
I'd give the slight edge to Ray.
The more interesting is that Ray's a HOF'er...is Vince?
40. "take away Ray's 2 rings, he still has the better career?" In response to Reply # 0
Not to diminish his worth, but really, Ray was the 3rd & 6th cog on dem title teams.. (A good cog but a cog nonetheless)..
Not saying Vince wulda necessarily fared better given the chance tho, cus we all know he wince a lot..
I'm just saying.. Ray career is slightly overated given dem 2 rings.
As to whom a better player tho? Its Vince by a mile! his prime, however short, rivals Kobe's. At one point Kobe v. Vince was even worthy a debate. U could never say that at any point 4 Ray
43. "And he was the best player on the Bucks and Sonics, fool" In response to Reply # 40 Wed Sep-30-15 09:20 PM by ConcreteCharlie
A Bucks team that went to the ECF (Game 7 thereof) and some good Sonics teams (they were a playoff team in the West with no point guard or center).
I also don't think you can call him a third or sixth cog. The Celtics' guys complemented each other well and picked up where they needed to, and he certainly was not what one would describe as a "cog" at any rate. He was the sixth man in Miami but was he less valuable than starter Mario Chalmers? FOH. One could argue he was their fourth most important player and that in a bench role.
I am usually all for the argument you're making but in this case it's not very illuminating. He *did* win those two titles. He did put in work, every season, every game, no matter where he was playing. Like RBO said, you switch these two guys and Boston ain't winning those rings.
And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Sports
(8 votes)
(16 votes)
