Shaq, KG, Kidd, And Ray Allen, I think a nasty side will always give that player the edge, Miller vs Allen is a battle of Shooters with Allen being SLIGHTLY better
Shaq-Duncan is a toss-up, there is no wrong choice, both have a lot of things. I say KG over Dirk. Kidd vs Nash is really close too, but I would go with kidd, those were my favorites non-rockets players, during many times, kidd is the only player in the mavs I like. Miller over Allen, Miller shots were classic, he was so amazing in the clutch.
I think it's too early to start comparing players from 2003 draft class to anyone. Vince Carter is the closest comparable player to Paul Pierce numbers/talent wise but even if you take away the success Pierce has had with the big 3 most would probably still say he's the better player.
Miller was a better player, better leader, better defender, he took his team to the NBA finals and couple of conference finals Ray had just one ecf and one wcsf before Celtics.
with reggie's stats, he did not "take" the pacers to where they were. he was their clutch player, but it wasn't like everything was ran through him like it would through a typical franchise player (and ray allen was at one time). the pacers were a very well-balanced team, that played great defense (mark jackson, rik smits, the davis brothers...) clutchness definitely raises your reputation as in the case of reggie.
I noticed most people go with Miller (I loved miller time on NBC back in the day) over Allen. While I do believe Miller was a superior clutch player, his defense was below avg. especially against the stronger SGs of the era because he was skinny as a stick. Now I'm not saying Ray Ray is a defensive stalwart, but he's no slouch. Reggie was a 1-dimensional player, albeit a very good one. Ray Allen coming into the league from UConn wasn't labeled a shooter but a scorer. Many people underrate his handles and ability to drive and create his own shot.
First of all, Allen was not the same player as Reggie He was an athlete with huge stroke, SDC participant. So he played much more selfishly. He was depending on his combo of body of shooting skills to much but he wasn't able to deliver. He had an potential ability to be someone like Kobe, but he didn't play hard on D and he lost a lot of opportuninities for his team. His leadership ability was always very very questionable (Reggie's? No way), that's why Bucks management pointed on Redd, not on him as their future star player He had just one solid playoffs campaighn with Sonics, then they dump him for an expiring (?) wally's contract and first rounder with a heartbeat. That's never going to happen with Reggie if he would be in such situation in his career He had a better team, better coaches than Ray for sure (George Karl decision making in crucial situations is a joke for almost two decades), but Miller had an ability to step up as a front runner every time his team needs him, not just in a clutch moments like true superstar Ray never had those status as same as Paul Pierce, but their combo is pretty deadly
Shaq.....better player in his prime than Duncan. Garnett was a far superior overall player... And Nash won two mvp's and should have been three. So I take Nash.
I think comparing career stats for active vs retired players isn't fair. Of course miller declined his last few years just as jordans stats with the wizards and dreams stats with Toronto tarnished their career stats. I'd prefer to compare the two in their primes. Miller was a 1st option on a contending team in his prime.
Shaq KG Nash Allen IMO the only difficult call here is KG>Dirk, as they are vastly different players and would each thrive under different circumstances (KG needs good scorers around him; Dirk needs blue-collar workers). For the others, just use the criteria: "If I swapped player A for player B, which team would improve?" There is no doubt in my mind that Shaq would have won more with the Spurs than he did with the Lakers, and that the Kobe/Duncan Lakers wouldn't have three-peated. Also, head-to-head Shaq has always dominated Duncan and the Spurs. This is not to downplay Duncan as much as to upgrade Shaq-- I consider Duncan to be the best PF ever and it's not that close. Nash>Kidd is an absolute no-brainer. The PG has two primary roles: shoot & pass. For much of his career, Nash has been the best shooter in the NBA and the best passer in the NBA. I don't think people really appreciate just how good he has been over this span (2 MVPs notwithstanding). It used to be that the 50/40/90 club was considered the elite standard for shooting prowess, and Nash has lived in that zone. Kidd, meanwhile, is one of the worst shooting PGs in the NBA despite having been in the league for 50 years. This is a serious flaw for a PG because players can sag, affecting the whole defense. The complaints against Nash are that he doesn't play D and he doesn't win. The lack of defense may be true-- hard to say as his teams have always preached that style, but I think most people look at Nash and say, oh he's slow & white so he MUST suck. Do the numbers really bear this out? Is he really getting torched by PGs night in and out, more so than Kidd or other PGs? I don't think so. As far as winning goes, well, most players don't win, because it's a team thing. Nash has taken crappy teams deep (the '06 team that everyone thought almost choked to Kobe's Lakers didn't have a better supporting cast than those Lakers... it's just that Nash made them look that way). The one time he had a really good team ('07) he was a horrible call away from making the Finals to most likely beat the Cavs. What has Kidd really done? He took an ok team to the Finals as a formality to be swept by the Lakers when the East was at its absolute bottom point. Allen is a much more complete player than Miller was, but it might not be remembered this way because Miller hit a number of big baskets. I don't even have to review the numbers to know this. This one is the most lopsided of the four.
the Wolves would have beaten the Lakers if Cassell didn't get hurt. Also Sprewell leaving the NBA because he didn't get a fair salary to feed his children was bad news .
