Four years later, Tony Allen still hasn't developed

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

What I am reading in this post is a handful of people that have convinced themselves that TA is better and more productive than he really is, and a handful of people that are disagreeing and making factual points to try to convince the prior group. That doesn't sound like pages and pages of self-congratulating. I saw a couple posts early on where people stated that they had pointed out early in the year that TA wasn't going to get any better. Then a whole lot of discussion back and forth. Sure it is tough to convince the other side, especially when they disregard facts and only base their opinion on the subjective  , but that is what this post is all about. It does not however need people to get personally insulting. If what you are typing is thought by the majority to be insulting rather than sarcasm, then maybe you ought to not use sarcasm if that is what was really intended. I am sure you don't want people thinking you are being nasty!

What I see on this thread is a segment of the posting community who have a personal dislike of TA's game and so with every bump in the road the guy suffers they go out of their way to bury him, ignoring any counter-evidence or the overall milieu from whence the bump occurred.   

As for this whole business of "facts," I think you are confused about what a fact is.  See, there are facts and then there is the interpretation of those facts.  People who disagree with you don't "disregard facts or base their opinion on the subjective"; instead these people are disagreeing with you on the interpretation of those facts.  Arguments aren't won by whomever possesses the biggest bag of facts; they're won by whomever has the best interpretation of those facts.

It's funny that you bring up personal insults.  Beyond the straight-up, invective-filled, "go to hell" type rants which we're all familiar with, what really, objectively qualifies as an insult?  On this site, as we've recently seen, one man's sarcasm can be seen as another man's personal insult, depending on one's sense of humor, reading skills, or overall personal sensitivity.  Okay, lesson learned.  But couldn't someone also feel insulted to have their entire argument dismissed as being something that "ignores facts" or is "based on the subjective"?  Doesn't saying those things imply a lack of rationality or any understanding of proper argumentation?  Jeez, that's a pretty harsh thing to say to someone with which you're having a conversation.  It's dismissive and rude to say the least, impugning the very facility by which they converse.  Of course, that's only one interpretation of the situation.  Personally, I simply believe you don't understand the difference between a fact and its interpretation and so, when you say people are 'ignoring facts,' what you really meant to say is that you don't agree with some people's interpretation of the facts.  But I'm big like that 

There are a lot of guys on here that can argue back and forth about points and call each other out in areas where facts don't agree with their views, but they do it in a way that isn't demeaning to each other, and if it is taken the wrong way they apologize and move on. They don't however tell people to lighten up and blame the misunderstanding on them.

Yeah, I hate those people, they're so passive aggressive. 

You know Salmon, somehow I don't think you are interested in "having a discussion" with someone. I think all you are looking for is either a fight, or someone to agree with you. You may try to pawn off your other post as sarcasm, which I think is really a cover after you got called out, but this last post was just being absolutely nasty. Please direct your responses to someone else as I have already had enough of your type of "discussion". You don't know me, you don't know what I know or think, and I really would prefer to keep it that way. Good luck to you sir...

If that's how it must be, play on Playa.  Good luck to you as well.

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

So let's take a look at Tony Allen facts:

As already provided by Roy Hobbs

Stats per 36 minutes

04-05: 14.0 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.7 bpg, 47.5 fg%, 38.7 3pt%, 2.2 tpg, 4.5 pf
05-06: 13.6 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.9 spg, 0.7 bpg, 47.1 fg%, 32.4 3pt%, 2.5 tpg, 4.6 pf
06-07: 16.9 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 2.5 apg, 2.2 spg,  0.5 bpg,51.4 fg%, 24.2 3pt%, 3.4 tpg, 3.9 pf
07-08: 13.0 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 3.0 apg, 1.6 spg, 0.6 bpg, 43.6 fg%, 31.6 3pt%, 2.9 tpg, 4.4 pf
08-09: 14.8 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 2.2 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.7 bpg, 47.6 fg%, 16.7 3pt%, 3.1 tpg, 4.0 pf

These are the per game stats for his career:

               G   MIN   FG%   FT% REB  AST  TO  PTS
04-05  77   16.4   .475    .737   2.9    0.8   1.0   6.4
05-06  51   19.2   .471    .746   2.1    1.3   1.3   7.2
06-07  31   24.4   .514    .784   3.8    1.7   2.3   11.5
07-08  75   18.3   .434    .762   2.3    1.5   1.5   6.6
08-09  30   19.9   .474    .718   2.1    1.2   1.7   8.1

Without making comments about these numbers they are all simply facts.

He injured himself in the summer of 2005 and missed all of November and December of 2005 and started the 05-06 season on January 6th of 2006.

On January 10th of 2007, in the final minutes of a Celtics loss to the Indiana Pacers, Allen suffered a debilitating knee injury as he landed awkwardly after an uncontested slam dunk attempt after the whistle was blown, tearing both the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL). Allen underwent a successful ACL reconstructive surgery on January 13 at New England Baptist Hospital[9] and was sidelined for the rest of the season.

Allen has been primarily a bench player starting games only when other players were hurt although a rare start not necessitated by other injured players did occur.

Allen played his first year for a good but not championship caliber Boston Celtics team, his next two years for bad Boston Celtics teams and his last season and a third for the best team in the NBA.

In the two years Tony Allen played for playoff teams his usage was shortened greatly as compared to his regular season use that year.

Now all these are facts. There's no getting around them. But how do we interpret them?

That's a pretty good start, Nick, but limited.  I'd like to see some other stats, such as Holliger's PER, overall +/-, Net PER (TA's fifth on the team, currently) for the last 4 years before we start the interpretation.  There are probably some other good statistic measurements that I'm forgetting.  Regardless, we need ALL the facts if we want to interpret them correctly.  And we all might need a refresher course on what all those stats are measuring, because it's easy to get lost in the numbers sometimes.  This might take all season.

Oh, and as far as usage in the playoffs is concerned, I think we know why he played less in those two playoffs.  In 2004, he was a rookie and Doc got cold feet about playing him, even though he was the better option at 2 guard against Reggie.  As for last year, we all know that too: TA was still not mentally prepared to lay it on the line, suffering as he was from the emotional effects of his knee injury.  That, and some guy named James Posey who got all the wing minutes, not to mention the fact that rotations are tightened in the playoffs and TA hadn't earned his spot in that tightened rotation. 

[Brendan]

he may not have developed, but he started out okay.

here's PER #'s:

2004-05      14.74
2005-06    12.91
2006-07      17.06
2007-08    10.81
2008-09    12.52
2008-09      11.02 (projected)

15 is averags, and his PER of 12.52 ranks him 38th out of SG qualified (6.09 MPG) - if his defense (outside of the counting stats measured by PER) is just average, then he actually is a very good backup wing (assuming you are comfortable with one of the Allen brothers playing SF.)

[LB3533]

Before his first injury and the "club shooting" Tony was on his way to improving each year.

The recent seasons he has had to come back from another injury so he's not a total lost cause.

We should just be patient with him and allow him to recover to the fullest he can and go from there.

[Tr1boy]

Tony Allen is developed. Don't get what you expect more from him. If he had a consistant shot(maybe turnover the ball a little less) he wouldn't even be with us anymore as a bench guy.

Bench guys usually lack the overall game to be a starter. TA is a fine bench guy in my books

[Jesus Shuttlesworth #20]

TA is a straight G & haterz can't stand it!

[moiso]

Tony Allen is developed. Don't get what you expect more from him. If he had a consistant shot(maybe turnover the ball a little less) he wouldn't even be with us anymore as a bench guy.

Bench guys usually lack the overall game to be a starter. TA is a fine bench guy in my books

Absolutely agree with this.  Some people seem to think he's a potential allstar who is a big dissappointment when he's playing like he has always played.  He is who he is, and that's all he's ever been- even in that mythical monthlong stretch.

[cordobes]

Tony Allen's problem is not his average production. That's what stats show. What metric measure inconsistency and reliability? And please, don't come with the "if he was consistent, he'd be a starter" mantra. There are various degrees of unreliability. There's the starter inconsistency, the primary reserve inconsistency and the "If this guy is stinking, I won't have to play him heavy minutes anyway" inconsistency. Not all reserves are as inconsistent as Tony Allen. Odom perhaps, but his ceiling and his floor are so much higher it doesn't matter. Pavlovic or Varejão are more reliable than him, ditto for Mo Evans, ditto for Keith Bogans or Battie, ditto for Roger Mason or Bowen or Obeto, ditto for Shane Battier or Artest or Landry, ditto for Posey.  

[nickagneta]

So let's take a look at Tony Allen facts:

As already provided by Roy Hobbs

Stats per 36 minutes

04-05: 14.0 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.7 bpg, 47.5 fg%, 38.7 3pt%, 2.2 tpg, 4.5 pf
05-06: 13.6 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.9 spg, 0.7 bpg, 47.1 fg%, 32.4 3pt%, 2.5 tpg, 4.6 pf
06-07: 16.9 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 2.5 apg, 2.2 spg,  0.5 bpg,51.4 fg%, 24.2 3pt%, 3.4 tpg, 3.9 pf
07-08: 13.0 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 3.0 apg, 1.6 spg, 0.6 bpg, 43.6 fg%, 31.6 3pt%, 2.9 tpg, 4.4 pf
08-09: 14.8 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 2.2 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.7 bpg, 47.6 fg%, 16.7 3pt%, 3.1 tpg, 4.0 pf

These are the per game stats for his career:

               G   MIN   FG%   FT% REB  AST  TO  PTS
04-05  77   16.4   .475    .737   2.9    0.8   1.0   6.4
05-06  51   19.2   .471    .746   2.1    1.3   1.3   7.2
06-07  31   24.4   .514    .784   3.8    1.7   2.3   11.5
07-08  75   18.3   .434    .762   2.3    1.5   1.5   6.6
08-09  30   19.9   .474    .718   2.1    1.2   1.7   8.1

Without making comments about these numbers they are all simply facts.

He injured himself in the summer of 2005 and missed all of November and December of 2005 and started the 05-06 season on January 6th of 2006.

On January 10th of 2007, in the final minutes of a Celtics loss to the Indiana Pacers, Allen suffered a debilitating knee injury as he landed awkwardly after an uncontested slam dunk attempt after the whistle was blown, tearing both the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL). Allen underwent a successful ACL reconstructive surgery on January 13 at New England Baptist Hospital[9] and was sidelined for the rest of the season.

Allen has been primarily a bench player starting games only when other players were hurt although a rare start not necessitated by other injured players did occur.

Allen played his first year for a good but not championship caliber Boston Celtics team, his next two years for bad Boston Celtics teams and his last season and a third for the best team in the NBA.

In the two years Tony Allen played for playoff teams his usage was shortened greatly as compared to his regular season use that year.

Now all these are facts. There's no getting around them. But how do we interpret them?

That's a pretty good start, Nick, but limited.  I'd like to see some other stats, such as Holliger's PER, overall +/-, Net PER (TA's fifth on the team, currently) for the last 4 years before we start the interpretation.  There are probably some other good statistic measurements that I'm forgetting.  Regardless, we need ALL the facts if we want to interpret them correctly.  And we all might need a refresher course on what all those stats are measuring, because it's easy to get lost in the numbers sometimes.  This might take all season.

Oh, and as far as usage in the playoffs is concerned, I think we know why he played less in those two playoffs.  In 2004, he was a rookie and Doc got cold feet about playing him, even though he was the better option at 2 guard against Reggie.  As for last year, we all know that too: TA was still not mentally prepared to lay it on the line, suffering as he was from the emotional effects of his knee injury.  That, and some guy named James Posey who got all the wing minutes, not to mention the fact that rotations are tightened in the playoffs and TA hadn't earned his spot in that tightened rotation. 

Just so that we are clear, all I stated was the fact that he played less minutes. I never speculated as to the reasons why, that is your own doing SalmonandMashed.

All I said was fact, he played less minutes in the playoffs the two years his teams made it to the playoffs than he did the regular season. The same way I can say that he has had only one season where he had more assists than turnovers and that was last year when he had 114 assists to 109 turnovers. Every other year he has not had more assists than turnovers.

It's the same way I can statistically state that out of all the shooting guards that play more than 15 MPG, Tony Allen has the 5th lowest assist to turnover ratio in the league at 0.72 and is consistently amongst the bottom ten in this category for shooting guards since he entered the league.

I'm not drawing conclusions from those facts, just stating them, people can draw their own conclusions.

Net PER per position:
                    PG        SG        SF         PF
2004-05  +1.8     +1.3       +22.9     N/A
2005-06   -0.9      -5.1        0.0        N/A
2006-07    0.0     +1.2       +3.0      -50.0 
2007-08   -8.8     +2.7       -6.2        0.0
2008-09    0.0     +2.1       -3.0        N/A

[Finkelskyhook]

The bottom line is that Tony is an intregal part to both a championship and a 28-4 team.  I've got to believe that coaching and management sees a lot in Tony for that to be the case.

[ManUp]

The bottom line is that Tony is an intregal part to both a championship and a 28-4 team.  I've got to believe that coaching and management sees a lot in Tony for that to be the case.

That's not completely true.

Tony is an integral part of a 28-4 team yes, but not a championship team. He's one of the best bench players on what is a sub par bench. That's not much of an achievement.

The Coaching staff is well aware of Tony's strength's and weaknesses. My guess is that they put him out there hoping for the best, it's not like they have much of a choice.

[crownsy]

The bottom line is that Tony is an intregal part to both a championship and a 28-4 team.  I've got to believe that coaching and management sees a lot in Tony for that to be the case.

That's not completely true.

Tony is an integral part of a 28-4 team yes, but not a championship team. He's one of the best bench players on what is a sub par bench. That's not much of an achievement.

The Coaching staff is well aware of Tony's strength's and weaknesses. My guess is that they put him out there hoping for the best, it's not like they have much of a choice.

It is completly true that they had a ton of other options (including overpaying for posey) and instead chose to stick with TA and a new contract, so clearly someone in the celtics player managment divsion has a pretty high opnion of his abilities that some of us seem not to share.

[ManUp]

The bottom line is that Tony is an intregal part to both a championship and a 28-4 team.  I've got to believe that coaching and management sees a lot in Tony for that to be the case.

That's not completely true.

Tony is an integral part of a 28-4 team yes, but not a championship team. He's one of the best bench players on what is a sub par bench. That's not much of an achievement.

The Coaching staff is well aware of Tony's strength's and weaknesses. My guess is that they put him out there hoping for the best, it's not like they have much of a choice.

It is completly true that they had a ton of other options (including overpaying for posey) and instead chose to stick with TA and a new contract, so clearly someone in the celtics player managment divsion has a pretty high opnion of his abilities that some of us seem not to share.

In terms of what's on the roster right now, there isn't much of a choice in playing him. I don't remember them having many better options in the off-season either. Tony has a lot to offer when healthy and confident, the problem is he rarely has both at the same time. He was a low risk and high reward pick up at the time he was resigned. 

[Roy Hobbs]

The bottom line is that Tony is an intregal part to both a championship and a 28-4 team.  I've got to believe that coaching and management sees a lot in Tony for that to be the case.

That's not completely true.

Tony is an integral part of a 28-4 team yes, but not a championship team. He's one of the best bench players on what is a sub par bench. That's not much of an achievement.

The Coaching staff is well aware of Tony's strength's and weaknesses. My guess is that they put him out there hoping for the best, it's not like they have much of a choice.

It is completly true that they had a ton of other options (including overpaying for posey) and instead chose to stick with TA and a new contract, so clearly someone in the celtics player managment divsion has a pretty high opnion of his abilities that some of us seem not to share.

While that may be true, it's also true that those same talent evaluators were perfectly happy to let Tony walk away, declining to extend him a qualifying offer to retain his services.  Just because Tony was rated as the best option left on the market at the time he signed doesn't mean he was valued highly. 

Additionally, even if he was valued at one time, that does not suggest that the front office doesn't regret the signing; we really have no idea, although I've got to think that many in the front office would be more happy with a Matt Barnes, James Posey or Roger Mason right now.

[EJPLAYA]

The bottom line is that Tony is an intregal part to both a championship and a 28-4 team.  I've got to believe that coaching and management sees a lot in Tony for that to be the case.

That's not completely true.

Tony is an integral part of a 28-4 team yes, but not a championship team. He's one of the best bench players on what is a sub par bench. That's not much of an achievement.

The Coaching staff is well aware of Tony's strength's and weaknesses. My guess is that they put him out there hoping for the best, it's not like they have much of a choice.

It is completly true that they had a ton of other options (including overpaying for posey) and instead chose to stick with TA and a new contract, so clearly someone in the celtics player managment divsion has a pretty high opnion of his abilities that some of us seem not to share.

That isn't true at all. They didn't have a ton of other options or they wouldn't have signed TA. He was the best available to them that would sign. The other guys that were better decided to go elsewhere for either more money or other reasons. They ONLY signed TA because they had no other choice. If that were different they would have picked up his option. They were hoping to improve the spot and let him walk. They didn't even make an effort in free agency to keep him until no other team signed him and he was all that was left. The fact other teams weren't interested should tell everyone on here that we are overvaluing what he does. If he was such a stellar defender teams would have been after him. They know what many of us do. He is a turnover prone inconsistent player who is a solid defender. Nothing more.