Four years later, Tony Allen still hasn't developed

[KungPoweChicken]

He's productive enough to be a 15-20 minute player on a 28-4 team, and to rank 6th in the NBA in steals per 48 minutes.

Posey ranks 86th, with fewer than half the steals per minute that TA gets.

 

Hint to posters, the above is your clue to type out a long response about how Allen's sloppy and unintelligent play negates his impressive steal statistic. 

[Chris]

He's productive enough to be a 15-20 minute player on a 28-4 team, and to rank 6th in the NBA in steals per 48 minutes.

Posey ranks 86th, with fewer than half the steals per minute that TA gets.

 

Hint to posters, the above is your clue to type out a long response about how Allen's sloppy and unintelligent play negates his impressive steal statistic. 

Again???  But that's so much work!

[Evantime34]

He needs to start playing with confidence. Attack the rim every time he has the opportunity. During the Lakers game him not being able to score in my opinion was what doomed our second unit and cost us the game. If he doesn't pick it up I have no problem shipping him away to give one of the rookies a chance, maybe packaging him so that we have an extra roster spot.

[amenhotep04]

Okay, a summary of TA I think from the volumes written:

Pros: steals the ball; pretty good defender; drives the lane; can finish at the basket; and good locker room guy.

Cons: sloppy; turnovers; inconsistent passing, dribbling, and outside shooting.

So, the team needs: (1) two outside shooters on the floor with him; who (2) also can dribble the ball effectively up court to alleviate troubles with defensive pressure; and (3) who are effective at passing the ball in the half court as well as the open court.

Does this alleviate all the problems of having Tony on the floor; allow him to play to his strengths; while making the team better?

[Andy Jick]

He's productive enough to be a 15-20 minute player on a 28-4 team, and to rank 6th in the NBA in steals per 48 minutes.

Posey ranks 86th, with fewer than half the steals per minute that TA gets.

 

so, you're saying you'd rather have tony allen over james posey if you could make that choice? 

[EJPLAYA]

He's productive enough to be a 15-20 minute player on a 28-4 team, and to rank 6th in the NBA in steals per 48 minutes.

Posey ranks 86th, with fewer than half the steals per minute that TA gets.

 

Hint to posters, the above is your clue to type out a long response about how Allen's sloppy and unintelligent play negates his impressive steal statistic. 

No here is a short one though. 1.3 steals per game. 1.7 turnovers per game. I think many of those turnovers are after he has stolen the ball and just gives it right back. The others he just misses the layup. Steals with a turnover mean nothing.

[EJPLAYA]

He's productive enough to be a 15-20 minute player on a 28-4 team, and to rank 6th in the NBA in steals per 48 minutes.

Posey ranks 86th, with fewer than half the steals per minute that TA gets.

 

How about this one then Brick... Scal averages .3 turnovers in 10 min a game. TA 1.7 in 20 min. That means that Scal is almost 6 times the player that TA is.

[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. 

[cordobes]

SalmonAndMashedPotatoes, just out of curiosity, weren't you the one who repeatedly used - about Tony Allen and his production - the sentence "End of Discussion!"? I kind of remember that you said something like "Tony Allen will have the minutes and he will produce. End of discussion." Am I confusing you with someone else? I must be, you're now saying things like "I just think you (and other posters like you) are jumping the gun on this discussion, arguing before all the facts are in" and "We're two months into the season, and it's not the time to start drawing conclusions". This means the discussion has not ended after all, right?

Anyway, can you please stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a Tony Allen detractor? Or provide some reasoning for that? I'd really like to know why I'm a Tony Allen detractor - or, if I'm not, to receive an apology.

[EJPLAYA]

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...

[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?


 

[BrickJames]

But how do we interpret them?

"Four years later, Tony Allen still hasn't developed"

/thread

[nickagneta]

But how do we interpret them?

"Four years later, Tony Allen still hasn't developed"

/thread

TP4U! That got a chuckle out of me!

[CoachBo]

Chuckle. That is indeed a good one.

All the bloviating in the world isn't going to change what Tony isn't: a quality sixth man on a championship contender.

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

SalmonAndMashedPotatoes, just out of curiosity, weren't you the one who repeatedly used - about Tony Allen and his production - the sentence "End of Discussion!"? I kind of remember that you said something like "Tony Allen will have the minutes and he will produce. End of discussion." Am I confusing you with someone else?

Nope, that was me.  The full quote was something like this, "with steady minutes and a specified role, TA will produce.  End of discussion."  So, it wasn't "end of discussion" to TA in general or what he brings to the table or this or that, it was "end of discussion" to whether or not he'd produce.  And he has produced...he's the 2nd team's leading scorer and steal maker....the discussion now is the nature of that production and how it best fits into the team as a whole.

I must be, you're now saying things like "I just think you (and other posters like you) are jumping the gun on this discussion, arguing before all the facts are in" and "We're two months into the season, and it's not the time to start drawing conclusions". This means the discussion has not ended after all, right?

Nope, the discussion is on-going.  See above and my previous posts.  I'm of the opinion we have yet to see the best TA has to offer.

Anyway, can you please stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a Tony Allen detractor? Or provide some reasoning for that? I'd really like to know why I'm a Tony Allen detractor - or, if I'm not, to receive an apology.

I have never ever not once used the word detractor, except when I'm dismounting my tractor, but for you, cordobes, yes, I will refrain from using Tony Allen as adjective to describe anything you might say, and further will never refer to you as a part of an anti-Tony cabal, though I know for certain that one exists and meets regularly at Whitey's on Wednesdays....