Here's a thought:
Ray Allen is only a viable NBA star when he is unquestionably the number one option. Hear me out. I am a Timberwolves fan and watched Latrell Sprewell for a few years, and some nights he would be absolutely lights out: 11 for 18, 34 points, and would absolutely be a dominant offensive player. The next night, he would be 2 for 9 with 6 points, and would just be virtually invisible. I think Ray is the same way: he needs to get two or three buckets down in the first 10 minutes, otherwise you can count him as a loss for the game. And it's not like he's playing any defense, so you may as well have Wally Szczerbiak back on the squad.
He's been able to get away with it for so long for three reasons: (1) Ray, up until this year, has always been the unquestioned number one option on some very mediocre teams, (2) this year, the C's put 67 in the win column, and winning cures a lot of ills (like KG not having a whole lot of clutch to him -- trust me, I watched him for 12 years), and (3) he's been such a good -- or at least quiet -- teammate and citizen that most people would not want to badmouth him. Think of the image the NBA has been trying to rid itself of for the last 15 years...Ray Allen embodies all of that good image. Why trash his rep.
I mean, think about it -- even the worst NBA team is going to average 90 points. Somebody's gotta score, right? You stay moderately healthy long enough on some crummy to mid-level team, and you're bound to put 20,000 points on the board. Dominique Wilkins. Bernard King. George Gervin. All great scorers who never saw much beyond playoffs, round two.
Just my thought. Feel free to respond.
