The evolution of Tony Allen: 4 years later, he still has "potential"

[BballTim]

TA's turnover rate per 48 minutes last year was 3.8.  Arguably the best offensive player in the game Kobe Bryant was at 3.9, Manu another slashing  SG was at 4.2, and Wade has led the league in turnovers per 48 minutes the last 2 years.

Turnovers per 48 minutes is highly dependent on the number of touches that player has. It is why that stat is irrelevant compared to actual turnover ratios which adjust for touches (unless you want to disregard that the offense flows through those players as opposed to Allen).  Once adjusted to touches, Tony's turnover rate is 66% higher than Kobe's, 35% higher than Ginobli's, and 22% higher than Wade's. 

People can down play it all they want, but couple that with a deplorable 10.7 PER and you see a player I don't want on the floor.  If it makes you feel any better, I feel the same way about Ross. Didn't want him on the court. 

Tony Allen is a liability on the court.  People can clamor about "unique talent" all they want, his results say something else.

I'm excited about Powe getting more of an expanded role.  Allen.  Not so much. 

  Tony Allen isn't a liability on the court because he's a good defender. As much of a liability as you think he is on offense, he makes the person he's guarding more of a liability. Complain about his atrocious PER, but the person he covers will have a lower one. Tony'll get more turnovers than his opponent, but he'll also get more rebounds and score more points on fewer shots. And, for all of you posts on Tony's excessive turnover rate, he'll give up about 1/2 a turnover more per game than he forces on his opponent. It's not exactly killing us.

[Evantime34]

Tony Allen is an extremely aggressive player. On defense he is right in his mans face the entire time, on offense he tries to go to the hoop as much as possible. When someone like that doesn't get consistent minutes he can be too aggressive leading to turnovers and fouls. Next year with consistent minutes both those numbers will go down. People need to start being positive about him because as of now he's our 6th man and an important part of our team.

[JBcat]

In defense of Tony on that infamous Billups head fake play Tony if I recall didn't play the entire game then was asked to come in cold off the bench for a critical part of the game and defend a savvy point guard.   Billups has done that to many good defenders not just Tony.  Not exactly an  easy thing to do and as most of us know Tony plays much better when he is given ample playing time and not just spot duty in sporadic moments.  He should be given ample playing time off the bench next year with a healthy knee and if his play is not up to par I'll gladly say it's time to give someone else a shot like Giddens but there are enough examples from last year as some have said the LA game on the road, the Miami game, San Antonio and his play prior to the injury that when he is allowed to get into the flow of the game he is usually an effective player.  

People forget but Tony was actually starting to turn the corner in January and February when he averaged 7.7 PPG and 9.9 PPG respectively (7 games with at least 14 points in these 2 months) then suffered a minor setback with another injury.  I forget exactly what the injury was but I think it might have been his back.  In March he fell to 3.9 PPG  recovering from this injury and by the time he started to round into form again 9.0 PPG in April the playoff rotation was basically set which for the most part did not include Tony.

[CoachBo]

Tony Allen is an extremely aggressive player. On defense he is right in his mans face the entire time, on offense he tries to go to the hoop as much as possible. When someone like that doesn't get consistent minutes he can be too aggressive leading to turnovers and fouls. Next year with consistent minutes both those numbers will go down. People need to start being positive about him because as of now he's our 6th man and an important part of our team.

Awarding TA the sixth man role before training camp even begins is EXTREMELY premature. He's going to have to improve to earn that role, because he's certainly done nothing yet to earn it.

[Evantime34]

For arguments sake let's say that we were to award our 6th man spot right now, who do you think it would be?

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

I just skimmed through about 4 pages of this thread and there are good points made on both sides.  Let me make a couple small points and hopefully clear some things up.

1.  Tony was obviously Plan B.  Danny was never going to sing BOTH Posey and Tony.  And it wasn't because he didn't like Tony's game or his prospects for this upcoming season.  It was because he had determined that a.) if he came back Posey would be getting a great majority of the reserve minutes at the 2/3 next season, and b.) Tony struggles in 4 minute stints but plays very well in longer stretches.  Thus, if Posey came back, there wouldn't be many minutes to go around and Tony would only be getting 4 minute stints, if that, and probably not performing very well.  Therefore, he didn't pick up the QO because at that point it was still his first priority to sign Posey and it would be a waste of money to be paying Tony to perform a role that could be performed just as well by JR Giddens (that is, a role of playing short stints). 

So, just because he didn't want them both isn't an indictment of Tony's ability.  He liked them both; but valued Posey more.  No Posey, and Tony becomes the next best thing.  To argue that just because Danny didn't pick up the QO he obviously didn't value Tony at all and that later, when he signed Tony for 2 years at a rate less than the QO and said that he's due for a breakout year, that obviously he is 'spinning' the signing, well, I think that ignores several facts.  Tony was the 2nd choice.  Doesn't make him the a bad choice.  And it's not 'proof' that Tony isn't any good or that Danny is 'spinning.'

2.  People want to throw out statistics, but they only want to throw out the ones they think prove their point.  If you use a statistic, please, try to buttress it with some even-handedness because it is very easy to use statistics in a misleading manner, even unintentionally, and doing so makes you naive at best and conniving at worst.  So, if a poster wants to throw out that Tony's PER was 10.7 last year (when he was coming off an injury and given erratic playing time) to prove that Tony is garbage, it might be even smarter if that same poster did some homework and discovered that Tony's PER in 2006-2007 was 15.15.  Interestingly, Mr. Everything, James Posey posted a pretty respectable 12.08 PER last season (46th among small forwards).  Even more interesting, Posey's PER was 10.53 in 2006-2007, his last season in Miami.  Using a similar logic of some of the posters on this thread, signing Posey last season was a terrible move...jeez, he only had a PER of 10.53!!!!   


Fact is, Tony has been hurt by a lot of unfortunate circumstances throughout his career, some caused by himself and some just a matter of fate, but it pains me to see posters calling him 'dumb,' or 'garbage,' or a 'liability on the court.'  He's not any of those things.  When he's been healthy and given a consistent role, he's performed.  When he's been injured and given an inconsistent role, he's not performed.  Taking those facts, it's only natural to deduce that next season, when he should be healthy and playing a consistent role, that he will perform closer to his 15.15 PER than his 10.70 PER.  Right? 

Bottom line, getting Tony for a measly 5 million over 2 years was a master-stroke by Danny.  He's primed for a career year.  He's on a team where he's familiar with the coaching staff and players.  He's making short money.  He's in his athletic prime.  He has a role.  He's surrounded by the Big 3.  He's motivated by all the doubters.  He's eminently moveable if he doesn't perform or gets injured again.  What's not to like?  As Red said often, "the best moves are often the ones you don't make."  I think we're going to be happy that we ended up signing Tony and not letting him go; that we lucked into his cheap contract; that Posey priced himself out of our price range. 

[timepiece33]

Tony Allen isn't a liability on the court because he's a good defender. As much of a liability as you think he is on offense, he makes the person he's guarding more of a liability. Complain about his atrocious PER, but the person he covers will have a lower one.

Doubtful.   They'd have to be below 330 in the league. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

I just skimmed through about 4 pages of this thread and there are good points made on both sides.  Let me make a couple small points and hopefully clear some things up.

1.  Tony was obviously Plan B.  Danny was never going to sing BOTH Posey and Tony.  And it wasn't because he didn't like Tony's game or his prospects for this upcoming season.  It was because he had determined that a.) if he came back Posey would be getting a great majority of the reserve minutes at the 2/3 next season, and b.) Tony struggles in 4 minute stints but plays very well in longer stretches.  Thus, if Posey came back, there wouldn't be many minutes to go around and Tony would only be getting 4 minute stints, if that, and probably not performing very well.  Therefore, he didn't pick up the QO because at that point it was still his first priority to sign Posey and it would be a waste of money to be paying Tony to perform a role that could be performed just as well by JR Giddens (that is, a role of playing short stints). 

So, just because he didn't want them both isn't an indictment of Tony's ability.  He liked them both; but valued Posey more.  No Posey, and Tony becomes the next best thing.  To argue that just because Danny didn't pick up the QO he obviously didn't value Tony at all and that later, when he signed Tony for 2 years at a rate less than the QO and said that he's due for a breakout year, that obviously he is 'spinning' the signing, well, I think that ignores several facts.  Tony was the 2nd choice.  Doesn't make him the a bad choice.  And it's not 'proof' that Tony isn't any good or that Danny is 'spinning.'

2.  People want to throw out statistics, but they only want to throw out the ones they think prove their point.  If you use a statistic, please, try to buttress it with some even-handedness because it is very easy to use statistics in a misleading manner, even unintentionally, and doing so makes you naive at best and conniving at worst.  So, if a poster wants to throw out that Tony's PER was 10.7 last year (when he was coming off an injury and given erratic playing time) to prove that Tony is garbage, it might be even smarter if that same poster did some homework and discovered that Tony's PER in 2006-2007 was 15.15.  Interestingly, Mr. Everything, James Posey posted a pretty respectable 12.08 PER last season (46th among small forwards).  Even more interesting, Posey's PER was 10.53 in 2006-2007, his last season in Miami.  Using a similar logic of some of the posters on this thread, signing Posey last season was a terrible move...jeez, he only had a PER of 10.53!!!!   


Fact is, Tony has been hurt by a lot of unfortunate circumstances throughout his career, some caused by himself and some just a matter of fate, but it pains me to see posters calling him 'dumb,' or 'garbage,' or a 'liability on the court.'  He's not any of those things.  When he's been healthy and given a consistent role, he's performed.  When he's been injured and given an inconsistent role, he's not performed.  Taking those facts, it's only natural to deduce that next season, when he should be healthy and playing a consistent role, that he will perform closer to his 15.15 PER than his 10.70 PER.  Right? 

Bottom line, getting Tony for a measly 5 million over 2 years was a master-stroke by Danny.  He's primed for a career year.  He's on a team where he's familiar with the coaching staff and players.  He's making short money.  He's in his athletic prime.  He has a role.  He's surrounded by the Big 3.  He's motivated by all the doubters.  He's eminently moveable if he doesn't perform or gets injured again.  What's not to like?  As Red said often, "the best moves are often the ones you don't make."  I think we're going to be happy that we ended up signing Tony and not letting him go; that we lucked into his cheap contract; that Posey priced himself out of our price range. 

4 TPs in 4 posts. Who here can argue against a guy like this? Lol.

[BballTim]

Tony Allen isn't a liability on the court because he's a good defender. As much of a liability as you think he is on offense, he makes the person he's guarding more of a liability. Complain about his atrocious PER, but the person he covers will have a lower one.

Doubtful.   They'd have to be below 330 in the league. 

  Sorry. You're just plain wrong. There's more to basketball than scoring (and turnovers).

  http://www.82games.com/0708/07BOS5C.HTM

[cmburrill]

At what point does the expression "untapped potential" become "unreached potential"? I want to know because I'm pretty sure Tony may have gotten there last year.

How long is a team supposed to wait and pay for a player to reach his potential? Sure in some cases it is very easy to see. Marcus Banks and Gerald Green come to mind. They both had tons of potential but it was fairly easy to determine that they would never reach anywhere close to the perceived initial reading of their potential.

Are the Celtics enamored with Tony's potential or have they at this point figured out that he is what he is and for this team and the role they need from him that that is okay? Has it occured to Tony Allen fans that the Celtics are no longer banking on him reaching his potential and that they are just paying him to be the very good defensive wing with the inconsistent shot, that has trouble dribbling and turns the ball over a bunch?

I think that's why Tony is still on this team and I believe his potential has nothing to do with it. If Posey signed Tony was history. He's here to be a wing stopper and nothing more.

I just refuse to believe that once a 1st round draft pick has been in the league past his rookie contract, that teams still look upon those players as having potential. They pay those players for what they are not what they can be.

   Come on,hes still 26 yoa. His maturity on and off the floor is still developing. He still tries to physically overwhelm defenders and when he is defending. He can not do that with more experienced players. We know that and we hope he will too. I am going to use the "36 minutes a game" to hopefully show you potential. If he played 36 mins he would avg 2.9 TOs a game.  PP  avg 2.8. its still too high. He brought that down from 3.4 TOa per 36 min the year before. Having Posey and Ray ahead of him was difficult for him to adjust to. His role went from scoring option to a clamp down defender. He was not used for team d but to shut down the hot hand. This killed all his defensive stats. His reb, st, blocks were all reduced. Yet his numbers for 36 mins were still good. 13 ppg 4.4 rbs 3 ass. and 1.6 stls. Id take that . I know stat do not promote game flow, but when he plays with out his mechanical responses to Docs instructions, this guy can flat out play. His roll will never be star, but if he plays the role to the potential we have all seen...we will miss posey less.

[cmburrill]

Doubtful.   They'd have to be below 330 in the league. 
[/quote]

  Sorry. You're just plain wrong. There's more to basketball than scoring (and turnovers).

  http://www.82games.com/0708/07BOS5C.HTM
[/quote]
 That website is flawed...It lists PP best position as PF. It shows Perk avg 40 points plus at the pf position. Make no mistake  teams use of positions are based on matchups. Power Forward is not always a banger brawny rebounding type. There are atletic thin Pf's ala Garnett or like Al Jeff. The site hopes to define a person a position based on an unknown variable. Though it does point out the two Celtics weaknesses...Front court depth and back court D. I  just dont know what determines Tim Duncans Position when hes playing high on the block or 15 feet from the basket, and someone else is on the low post.

[CoachBo]

At what point does the expression "untapped potential" become "unreached potential"? I want to know because I'm pretty sure Tony may have gotten there last year.

How long is a team supposed to wait and pay for a player to reach his potential? Sure in some cases it is very easy to see. Marcus Banks and Gerald Green come to mind. They both had tons of potential but it was fairly easy to determine that they would never reach anywhere close to the perceived initial reading of their potential.

Are the Celtics enamored with Tony's potential or have they at this point figured out that he is what he is and for this team and the role they need from him that that is okay? Has it occured to Tony Allen fans that the Celtics are no longer banking on him reaching his potential and that they are just paying him to be the very good defensive wing with the inconsistent shot, that has trouble dribbling and turns the ball over a bunch?

I think that's why Tony is still on this team and I believe his potential has nothing to do with it. If Posey signed Tony was history. He's here to be a wing stopper and nothing more.

I just refuse to believe that once a 1st round draft pick has been in the league past his rookie contract, that teams still look upon those players as having potential. They pay those players for what they are not what they can be.

   Come on,hes still 26 yoa. His maturity on and off the floor is still developing. He still tries to physically overwhelm defenders and when he is defending. He can not do that with more experienced players. We know that and we hope he will too. I am going to use the "36 minutes a game" to hopefully show you potential. If he played 36 mins he would avg 2.9 TOs a game.  PP  avg 2.8. its still too high. He brought that down from 3.4 TOa per 36 min the year before. Having Posey and Ray ahead of him was difficult for him to adjust to. His role went from scoring option to a clamp down defender. He was not used for team d but to shut down the hot hand. This killed all his defensive stats. His reb, st, blocks were all reduced. Yet his numbers for 36 mins were still good. 13 ppg 4.4 rbs 3 ass. and 1.6 stls. Id take that . I know stat do not promote game flow, but when he plays with out his mechanical responses to Docs instructions, this guy can flat out play. His roll will never be star, but if he plays the role to the potential we have all seen...we will miss posey less.

I'm pretty sure after reading this thread that Tony's mom, dad and agent are registered CelticsBlog posters.

Nick's point is well-taken: He played through a rookie contract without making any progress on the mental side of the game - and he's not going to help a championship team until the mental mistakes slow down. He's certainly not the first guy I want coming off the bench.

[timepiece33]

Tony Allen isn't a liability on the court because he's a good defender. As much of a liability as you think he is on offense, he makes the person he's guarding more of a liability. Complain about his atrocious PER, but the person he covers will have a lower one.

Doubtful.   They'd have to be below 330 in the league. 

  Sorry. You're just plain wrong. There's more to basketball than scoring (and turnovers).

  http://www.82games.com/0708/07BOS5C.HTM

Wrong?

So he held his opponent to less than a 10.7 PER?  Where do those stats say that?   From what it shows, his opponents overall PER was greater than 10.7.   That makes the original statement false. 

I like his defense.  I've just stated that his offense makes him a liability on the court on that side of the equation and no team should want him as their primary 6th man.

People can say whatever they want.  His four year stats and his low basketball IQ suggest at this very moment, he is not somebody a championship team should trust unless he improves significantly.

[BballTim]

Tony Allen isn't a liability on the court because he's a good defender. As much of a liability as you think he is on offense, he makes the person he's guarding more of a liability. Complain about his atrocious PER, but the person he covers will have a lower one.

Doubtful.   They'd have to be below 330 in the league. 

  Sorry. You're just plain wrong. There's more to basketball than scoring (and turnovers).

  http://www.82games.com/0708/07BOS5C.HTM

Wrong?

So he held his opponent to less than a 10.7 PER?  Where do those stats say that?   From what it shows, his opponents overall PER was greater than 10.7.   That makes the original statement false. 

  The PER numbers from 82games are a little higher than those on the ESPN website for all players. It has Tony with a higher PER than 10.7, and it's higher than his opponent's PER, so my statement was true. Food for thought,

 http://www.82games.com/ROLRTG3.HTM

  sort on opponent's production (which is akin to opponent's PER) and you'll see Tony at the top of the list for the entire league.

[Sweet17]

TA when healthy is a STUD out on the court. Those statistics are prime examples of how statistics can mislead. The gimpy TA who isn't getting only garbage time minutes can't hold a candle to the healthy TA getting a regular spot in the rotation. That's what i feel - and that's what Danny and Doc feel as well, IMHO.

Pete