Who was a better player at their peak: Manu or Ray Allen?

[LkrFan]

I got Ray Ray on this one.

[Killakobe81]

Career Ray allen no question. Peak, I still lean towards Ray ... Manu has a had a couple of really good PER seasons (a stat I hate but still) that surpassed Ray.

But as clutch as Manu is ....at times he has pulled some Favre's and some Romo's too ...

Ray allen has been one of the most consistently good shooters in NBA history and even at his advanced age has some "sneaky good" athleticism. Ray has been more durable.

Again, if it's close, 3>1 ... but is it really all that close?
As an efficent scorer (just like in the NAsh vs. Kidd debate) Id rather have Ray, but much like with Kidd stats cant tell the WHOLE story with a compe or like Manu. I say Ray but I have so much respect for Manu. he has been the 2nd best player on 3 tle teams and on one of those some argue he was the best.

Ray is the better pure scorer, shooter (FTs, 3's and mid-range) at his peak had more hops than Manu and was faster.

Manu was the better defender with great intangibles.

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

As much as I love Manu, I have to say Ray as well. But it's really really close. But at this point in their careers, I'd take Manu any day.

[Leetonidas]

Kinda hard comparing a 2nd fiddle to a #1 option in his prime. Ginobili has always been a beastly 2nd option and I don't think he would be able to keep himself out of harms way if he played more than 30mpg. It's probably close but Ray has the accolades and did decently in his tenure as his team's main man. I'd rather have Ginobili because of his intangibles but Ray is probably the better player because of his silky smooth shot. is a thing of beauty.

[JMarkJohns]

This is impossible to debate accurately because Manu has never been asked to be a #1 option on a team, at least not in his prime.

Manu would likely handle the pressure well, but the pressure is pretty great, and with his nagging inability to stay healthy, an expanded role could have limited overall impact due to an ac ulation of too many minutes and having to carry more of the burden.

As it stands now, Allen was better at what he did great than Manu, and was such while being the focus of opposing defenses and alongside some severely limited/flawed teammates, another issue Manu hasn't really had to face.

[JMarkJohns]

Kinda hard comparing a 2nd fiddle to a #1 option in his prime. Ginobili has always been a beastly 2nd option and I don't think he would be able to keep himself out of harms way if he played more than 30mpg. It's probably close but Ray has the accolades and did decently in his tenure as his team's main man. I'd rather have Ginobili because of his intangibles but Ray is probably the better player because of his silky smooth shot. is a thing of beauty.

Beat me to it.

[Killakobe81]

This is impossible to debate accurately because Manu has never been asked to be a #1 option on a team, at least not in his prime.

Manu would likely handle the pressure well, but the pressure is pretty great, and with his nagging inability to stay healthy, an expanded role could have limited overall impact due to an ac ulation of too many minutes and having to carry more of the burden.

As it stands now, Allen was better at what he did great than Manu, and was such while being the focus of opposing defenses and alongside some severely limited/flawed teammates, another issue Manu hasn't really had to face.

Great points but it's a sport debate notan exact science ...

I have argued Nique vs. worthy Mchale vs. Malone and those same issues arise. If they were equally great players playng with equal supporting casts, there wouldnt be much debate the person with more success would be declared superior. But since the supporting casts will ALWAYS be different the debates around players are ALWAYS like this.

[JMarkJohns]

It's just hard to really debate accurately (which is most of the fun) when one player never had the opportunities of the other, but, inversely, never bore the same weight of leadership/expectation/production.

Oh, and Nique alongside Magic devastates. Worthy was a very good player, but nowhere near the talent or player Wilkins was.

McHale vs. Malone is interesting, as while the latter was his team's leading scorer, he wasn't the true facilitator of the offense, so while roles were a bit different as far as being the #1 or #2 options, as individual players, the talent is elite and the impact significant. That would be fun, although I don't think that many on this board saw McHale.

[Dex]

Manu would likely handle the pressure well, but the pressure is pretty great, and with his nagging inability to stay healthy, an expanded role could have limited overall impact due to an ac ulation of too many minutes and having to carry more of the burden.

Bingo. Something to consider....Last season, Manu was probably more of the focal point of the Spurs offense than ever before. Many would say he was the leader of last season, which resulted in the Spurs being top of the standings for nearly the whole season and earned them the top seed in the West.

Manu hurts his arm in the last game (), his effectiveness is stifled, and the Spurs end up getting trashed by the eight seed. Coincidence? I think not.

If Manu could stay healthy, I think his career easily rivals Allen's, maybe even Kobe's. Unfortunately, staying healthy seems to be one of the few things Ginobili does not do well.

[Brazil]

Maybe it's a wrong impression but for me prime Manu is a better all around player than Allen. Passing, defense, rebounds, hustle, other intangibles for Manu... Allen is the better shooter JS, FTs and 3's. Both are clutch. So it basically depends on what your team needs. Both choices are ok.

[baseline bum]

Gotta go with Shuttlesworth here in a landslide, mainly because Manu has never been able to play 40 minutes a game. He was a of a #1 option in the 04 Olympics though.

[mavs>spurs]

allen got bigger numbers but manu was more of a team playa and helped his team much more. allen as da #1 didn't do 4 his team while manu being the #1 of argentinian bball team won da olympics gold medal in 04, on the same tournament where da dream team led by allen/iverson/duncan only got a bronze. manu is unstoppable when hes on fire tbh u have no in solution to him, allen could score 60+ in a game but you can make him struggle alot if you have such a dirty scrappy D specialist like bruce bowen, and allen doesn't know how to lead his team to a W when it really matters

[BlackSwordsMan]

Rogue at his peak >

[Barfunk]

"As a number one option, Ginobili would average 25ppg." - Charles Barkley paraphrased, circa 2004-2008.

Would like to hear some more takes on this thread, sans the "lol got" takes.

[lefty]

Ray is a better shooter

Yep, that's the only thing he has on Manu

[badfish22]

Ray is a better shooter

Yep, that's the only thing he has on Manu

Off-ball movement
Durability

[lefty]

Off-ball movement
Durability

True

But again, Manu is not an outside shooter like Ray, so he doesn't need to do that

[HarlemHeat37]

I wouldn't want either of them as my #1, but if I had to pick, it would be Ray Allen, simply due to potential durability issues..however, I have always found Ray Allen to be overrated..he was never a capable passer, he was never more than an average defensive player, he wasn't a standout rebounder at his position..he was always an elite scorer, I would never take that away from him, but he lacked the all-around game that is required to lead an offense IMO..

Ginobili is much more capable at making an impact in multiple facets of the game..he was an underrated defender in his prime, he has always been one of the best passing swingmen in the NBA, he was better at getting to the FT line than Ray Allen..

[DAF86]

Ray has been more durable.

Manu was an all-star last season at age 33, that's beign durable to me.

As an efficent scorer Id rather have Ray.

Ginobili pts per shot attempt - 1.4

Allen pts per shot attempt - 1.2


I heard a lot of people talking about Manu not beign a number one guy, well let me ask you this: In your opinion who was the Spurs best player last season? What was the Spurs record last season?

You want to tell me that the Spurs were a team oriented squad and didn't rely too much on one guy, well IMO team sports should be like that but let's consider that opinion as valid.

Do you remember the second half of the 2009/10 season or the entire 2007/2008 season? I think that proves that Ginobili is more than capable of leading a very good team as the number one guy.

The "durability" issue is all speculation, I'm sure Ginobili in his physical prime would have been able to play 35+ minutes per game without breaking.

[badfish22]

An theres the Argentinian opinion.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Manu was an all-star last season at age 33, that's beign durable to me.



Ginobili pts per shot attempt - 1.4

Allen pts per shot attempt - 1.2


I heard a lot of people talking about Manu not beign a number one guy, well let me ask you this: In your opinion who was the Spurs best player last season? What was the Spurs record last season?

You want to tell me that the Spurs were a team oriented squad and didn't rely too much on one guy, well IMO team sports should be like that but let's consider that opinion as valid.

Do you remember the second half of the 2009/10 season or the entire 2007/2008 season? I think that proves that Ginobili is more than capable of leading a very good team as the number one guy.

The "durability" issue is all speculation, I'm sure Ginobili in his physical prime would have been able to play 35+ minutes per game without breaking.

Sooooooooo I'm guessing you chose Manu tbh?

[picc84]

Ray was a better shooter, equal or better scorer, equal or better defender....and yet I can't see any team Ray has been on being worse with Manu on it.

Ray's ability to play more minutes at an effective level is a point in his favor.

Manu is a better playmaker, ballhandler, and definitely has the edge in intangibles. Despite Ray's scoring edge, I don't see the Sonics or Celtics being any worse with Manu, and I don't see the Spurs being any better with Ray.

Intangibles mean a lot with me, and Manu has them in spades. He's the kind of guy who just gives your team whatever you need, at the exact time you need it. Ray can go through bad shooting slumps in which he doesn't contribute anything else to the team. Even when Manu isn't shooting well he's still impacting the game.

Plus, you can put the ball in Manu's hands in crunchtime and expect him to make plays. Ray, not so much. Although he is one of the best clutch shooters of all time. But Manu is a clutch playmaker. Slight difference.

I'll go with Manu....BARELY. This is as close a comparison as it gets.

[badfish22]

I heard a lot of people talking about Manu not beign a number one guy, well let me ask you this: In your opinion who was the Spurs best player last season?

Probably Manu. But they had a lot of good players instead of any #1 options and it showed in the playoffs.

[DAF86]

An theres the Argentinian opinion.

I posted that just to see your comment about it, tbh.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I see the 05 Sonics being worse with Manu as oppose to Ray just because for whatever reason that group of players meshed well, played way beyond its talent level, and replacing Allen with a comparable player might have ed up whatever weird chemistry that team had.

With that said, I don't see any of those Milwaukee Bucks teams worse off with Manu, and since it's peak Ray vs. peak Manu the Celtics aren't really a part of the discussion since Ray Allen's best individual years weren't in Boston. I'd go with Manu by a hair but as Harlem said, neither one is a viable #1 option.