Ray Allen needs only 20 three's to tie Reggie Miller's record for the most three's in NBA history. Allen, once an elite scorer in Milwaukee and Seattle, has settled nicely into his role on the Celtics, and will no doubt retire as a sure-fire Hall of Famer. The question should be asked, though: if you had the opportunity to either go back and be either Reggie Miller or Ray Allen from the beginning of their careers, who would you rather be?
Obviously, Allen has the nicer perks. He won a championship in 2008 with the Celtics and will eventually steal Miller's mantle as the three-point king of the NBA. But Allen, as great as he was, was never as good as Reggie Miller. Miller was almost always the best player on his team, never once got traded, and got to go against the likes of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas and Larry Bird early in his career. He never won a title, but Allen was arguably the third best player on Boston's recent championship team. (Not only that, but Miller was offered a chance to come out of retirement and play with the Celtics in '08, meaning his lack of a ring was more volition than constant failure.)
To me, it's really a toss-up. As great as winning a title would be, I'd rather be the guy who got to be the superstar, full-time, and never had to move across the country -- a factor few of us consider when we look at athletes. You couldn't go wrong being either though, since both will wind up in the Hall of Fame eventually.