Tony Allen has finally made it...

[greenpride32]

TA's game against OKC follows a 2-8 FG, team worst -20 +/- rating performance the game before (a win against DAL).  BTW he was also a -2 vs OKC; so much for his D?

He's the same inconsistent player he was in BOS.  But just getting more playing time in MEM.  So his good games in MEM (starter) look really good in comparison to his good games in BOS (backup).

Anyways, how bout them Grizzlies?  Wins over OKC DAL and SAS in the past week.

[jsingh1699]

i hope they play the lakers in the first round. of course the lakers will win the series, but im hoping ta/battier can wear out kobe for 6-7 games

[footey]

This is Tony's game.  I am surprised it took so long for him to fit in, but I am not surprised at all.  Tony is the type of player who needs to be playing big minutes on a mediocre team to really succeed.  He needs to be allowed to make his mistakes and still be aggressive.   

However, on a team like the C's, he was exposed, because they play such a precise game, and every mistake becomes more important.  He never fit in as a role player, because the role they needed was not within his strengths.  They needed someone steadier, who might not make as many plays, but also didn't make as many mistakes. 

It was a smart move of Chris Wallace to recognize this, and take advantage of getting a guy for cheap, who can put up numbers in a smaller spotlight. 

I still think Tony is just a smaller Gerald Wallace...and yes, that is more a slight on Wallace, who I don't think can be nearly as good on a contender, than a compliment to Tony.

Great analysis, Chris. Had not thought of that. TP

[wiley]

This is Tony's game.  I am surprised it took so long for him to fit in, but I am not surprised at all.  Tony is the type of player who needs to be playing big minutes on a mediocre team to really succeed.  He needs to be allowed to make his mistakes and still be aggressive.   

However, on a team like the C's, he was exposed, because they play such a precise game, and every mistake becomes more important.  He never fit in as a role player, because the role they needed was not within his strengths.  They needed someone steadier, who might not make as many plays, but also didn't make as many mistakes. 

It was a smart move of Chris Wallace to recognize this, and take advantage of getting a guy for cheap, who can put up numbers in a smaller spotlight. 

I still think Tony is just a smaller Gerald Wallace...and yes, that is more a slight on Wallace, who I don't think can be nearly as good on a contender, than a compliment to Tony.

Great analysis, Chris. Had not thought of that. TP

I disagree.  I think Tony could have started for the Celtics and played big minutes.  And HELPED a great deal, despite making more mistakes than Ray Allen.....and not being there to hit threes.  But I do agree that that's not what the Celtics wanted.....

I also agree that if a team doesn't want to take the bad with the good, which may be true of most better teams, but certainly not all good teams, then he'll have more trouble fitting in....

but I think this has to do more with aesthetics and less with actual ability to influence games...

Tony is now starting and playing big minutes for a good team, and it's interesting to note that this team's increased win frequency coincides with Tony settling into the starting lineup and getting lots of minutes.  I'm looking forward to watching Tony in the playoffs.  I hope the Grizzlies play the Lakers....I think they'll give them a battle and I think Tony will bother Kobe...

[GJPBoston]

What also hurt Tony with the Cs, beyond availability/health, is the same thing that hurt Perk: with Rondo being a non-shooter, it is hard to play other non-shooters, especially at the wing, with Rondo (though Tony was great in the open court with Rondo and on defense with Rondo).  That said, I'd still love to have him on the Cs, but it does limit how much you can play him.

[Fafnir]

This is Tony's game.  I am surprised it took so long for him to fit in, but I am not surprised at all.  Tony is the type of player who needs to be playing big minutes on a mediocre team to really succeed.  He needs to be allowed to make his mistakes and still be aggressive.   

However, on a team like the C's, he was exposed, because they play such a precise game, and every mistake becomes more important.  He never fit in as a role player, because the role they needed was not within his strengths.  They needed someone steadier, who might not make as many plays, but also didn't make as many mistakes. 

It was a smart move of Chris Wallace to recognize this, and take advantage of getting a guy for cheap, who can put up numbers in a smaller spotlight. 

I still think Tony is just a smaller Gerald Wallace...and yes, that is more a slight on Wallace, who I don't think can be nearly as good on a contender, than a compliment to Tony.

Great analysis, Chris. Had not thought of that. TP

I disagree.  I think Tony could have started for the Celtics and played big minutes.  And HELPED a great deal, despite making more mistakes than Ray Allen.....and not being there to hit threes.  But I do agree that that's not what the Celtics wanted.....

I also agree that if a team doesn't want to take the bad with the good, which may be true of most better teams, but certainly not all good teams, then he'll have more trouble fitting in....

but I think this has to do more with aesthetics and less with actual ability to influence games...

Tony is now starting and playing big minutes for a good team, and it's interesting to note that this team's increased win frequency coincides with Tony settling into the starting lineup and getting lots of minutes.  I'm looking forward to watching Tony in the playoffs.  I hope the Grizzlies play the Lakers....I think they'll give them a battle and I think Tony will bother Kobe...

Offensively starting Tony Allen didn't work with the C's in part because of Rondo/Perkins. Playing three non-shooters is a serious problem for any line up.

[wiley]

This is Tony's game.  I am surprised it took so long for him to fit in, but I am not surprised at all.  Tony is the type of player who needs to be playing big minutes on a mediocre team to really succeed.  He needs to be allowed to make his mistakes and still be aggressive.   

However, on a team like the C's, he was exposed, because they play such a precise game, and every mistake becomes more important.  He never fit in as a role player, because the role they needed was not within his strengths.  They needed someone steadier, who might not make as many plays, but also didn't make as many mistakes. 

It was a smart move of Chris Wallace to recognize this, and take advantage of getting a guy for cheap, who can put up numbers in a smaller spotlight. 

I still think Tony is just a smaller Gerald Wallace...and yes, that is more a slight on Wallace, who I don't think can be nearly as good on a contender, than a compliment to Tony.

Great analysis, Chris. Had not thought of that. TP

I disagree.  I think Tony could have started for the Celtics and played big minutes.  And HELPED a great deal, despite making more mistakes than Ray Allen.....and not being there to hit threes.  But I do agree that that's not what the Celtics wanted.....

I also agree that if a team doesn't want to take the bad with the good, which may be true of most better teams, but certainly not all good teams, then he'll have more trouble fitting in....

but I think this has to do more with aesthetics and less with actual ability to influence games...

Tony is now starting and playing big minutes for a good team, and it's interesting to note that this team's increased win frequency coincides with Tony settling into the starting lineup and getting lots of minutes.  I'm looking forward to watching Tony in the playoffs.  I hope the Grizzlies play the Lakers....I think they'll give them a battle and I think Tony will bother Kobe...

Offensively starting Tony Allen didn't work with the C's in part because of Rondo/Perkins. Playing three non-shooters is a serious problem for any line up.

Yeah, probably not ideal starting linueup on Celtics for the reason you state.  But the defense would be great and we'd have another player who drives to the hole.  Still agree overall with you...

Memphis a better fit for Tony as a starter......  Not because they're a mediocre or bad team (they're not), but because they have lots of offensive options....probably importantly outside shooting from the PG spot....

[Change]

What also hurt Tony with the Cs, beyond availability/health, is the same thing that hurt Perk: with Rondo being a non-shooter, it is hard to play other non-shooters, especially at the wing, with Rondo (though Tony was great in the open court with Rondo and on defense with Rondo).  That said, I'd still love to have him on the Cs, but it does limit how much you can play him.

You hit the nail on the head. This explains his success in Memphis. Opposing Teams have to respect Mike Conley outside shot. Which opens up the floor for a slasher like Tony Allen.

[Eeyore III]

TA never has to handle the ball in Memphis, nor are any offensive plays run for him.  Thus, his turnovers are down.

The thing about Memphis that surprises me is that they're actually better without Rudy Gay.  Part of it no doubt is Battier, and also the sheer demotion of OJ, and the banishment of Thabust.  But also losing Gay is the magic ingredient that has really brought the team together.

If I were them, Gay would be sooooo on the block once the season is over.

TA hasn't changed.  He's always looked like an All-Star for 6 games a season, and he's in his annual hot streak now.  He definitely belongs in an uptempo system.  But I actually don't think he has "finally made it" or even changed, except incrementally.

[Chris]

This is Tony's game.  I am surprised it took so long for him to fit in, but I am not surprised at all.  Tony is the type of player who needs to be playing big minutes on a mediocre team to really succeed.  He needs to be allowed to make his mistakes and still be aggressive.   

However, on a team like the C's, he was exposed, because they play such a precise game, and every mistake becomes more important.  He never fit in as a role player, because the role they needed was not within his strengths.  They needed someone steadier, who might not make as many plays, but also didn't make as many mistakes. 

It was a smart move of Chris Wallace to recognize this, and take advantage of getting a guy for cheap, who can put up numbers in a smaller spotlight. 

I still think Tony is just a smaller Gerald Wallace...and yes, that is more a slight on Wallace, who I don't think can be nearly as good on a contender, than a compliment to Tony.

Great analysis, Chris. Had not thought of that. TP

I disagree.  I think Tony could have started for the Celtics and played big minutes.  And HELPED a great deal, despite making more mistakes than Ray Allen.....and not being there to hit threes.  But I do agree that that's not what the Celtics wanted.....

I also agree that if a team doesn't want to take the bad with the good, which may be true of most better teams, but certainly not all good teams, then he'll have more trouble fitting in....

but I think this has to do more with aesthetics and less with actual ability to influence games...

Tony is now starting and playing big minutes for a good team, and it's interesting to note that this team's increased win frequency coincides with Tony settling into the starting lineup and getting lots of minutes.  I'm looking forward to watching Tony in the playoffs.  I hope the Grizzlies play the Lakers....I think they'll give them a battle and I think Tony will bother Kobe...

Offensively starting Tony Allen didn't work with the C's in part because of Rondo/Perkins. Playing three non-shooters is a serious problem for any line up.

That, and they have a first ballot hall of famer, and current All Star in that spot.  Starting Tony was not an option.  And he just did not work in the role they needed him for. 

[Scalablob990]

  Tony always made me laugh, was a hell of a defender too. wish him the best.

[Celtics4ever]

I think Gay when he comes back will start,  it's a shame they don't see they are better with Tony.  They are scratching at making the playoffs not all world.

[wiley]

This is Tony's game.  I am surprised it took so long for him to fit in, but I am not surprised at all.  Tony is the type of player who needs to be playing big minutes on a mediocre team to really succeed.  He needs to be allowed to make his mistakes and still be aggressive.   

However, on a team like the C's, he was exposed, because they play such a precise game, and every mistake becomes more important.  He never fit in as a role player, because the role they needed was not within his strengths.  They needed someone steadier, who might not make as many plays, but also didn't make as many mistakes. 

It was a smart move of Chris Wallace to recognize this, and take advantage of getting a guy for cheap, who can put up numbers in a smaller spotlight. 

I still think Tony is just a smaller Gerald Wallace...and yes, that is more a slight on Wallace, who I don't think can be nearly as good on a contender, than a compliment to Tony.

Great analysis, Chris. Had not thought of that. TP

I disagree.  I think Tony could have started for the Celtics and played big minutes.  And HELPED a great deal, despite making more mistakes than Ray Allen.....and not being there to hit threes.  But I do agree that that's not what the Celtics wanted.....

I also agree that if a team doesn't want to take the bad with the good, which may be true of most better teams, but certainly not all good teams, then he'll have more trouble fitting in....

but I think this has to do more with aesthetics and less with actual ability to influence games...

Tony is now starting and playing big minutes for a good team, and it's interesting to note that this team's increased win frequency coincides with Tony settling into the starting lineup and getting lots of minutes.  I'm looking forward to watching Tony in the playoffs.  I hope the Grizzlies play the Lakers....I think they'll give them a battle and I think Tony will bother Kobe...

Offensively starting Tony Allen didn't work with the C's in part because of Rondo/Perkins. Playing three non-shooters is a serious problem for any line up.

That, and they have a first ballot hall of famer, and current All Star in that spot.  Starting Tony was not an option.  And he just did not work in the role they needed him for. 

He did play well enough to take minutes from Marquis, after Marquis got healthy.  But I agree they didn't trust him because he makes more mistakes in limited minutes.  Also, they did try, how hard is debatable, to bring him back.  I agree he's MUCH better with big minutes, but I disagree that it needs to be on a bad or mediocre team.....

[Chris]

This is Tony's game.  I am surprised it took so long for him to fit in, but I am not surprised at all.  Tony is the type of player who needs to be playing big minutes on a mediocre team to really succeed.  He needs to be allowed to make his mistakes and still be aggressive.   

However, on a team like the C's, he was exposed, because they play such a precise game, and every mistake becomes more important.  He never fit in as a role player, because the role they needed was not within his strengths.  They needed someone steadier, who might not make as many plays, but also didn't make as many mistakes. 

It was a smart move of Chris Wallace to recognize this, and take advantage of getting a guy for cheap, who can put up numbers in a smaller spotlight. 

I still think Tony is just a smaller Gerald Wallace...and yes, that is more a slight on Wallace, who I don't think can be nearly as good on a contender, than a compliment to Tony.

Great analysis, Chris. Had not thought of that. TP

I disagree.  I think Tony could have started for the Celtics and played big minutes.  And HELPED a great deal, despite making more mistakes than Ray Allen.....and not being there to hit threes.  But I do agree that that's not what the Celtics wanted.....

I also agree that if a team doesn't want to take the bad with the good, which may be true of most better teams, but certainly not all good teams, then he'll have more trouble fitting in....

but I think this has to do more with aesthetics and less with actual ability to influence games...

Tony is now starting and playing big minutes for a good team, and it's interesting to note that this team's increased win frequency coincides with Tony settling into the starting lineup and getting lots of minutes.  I'm looking forward to watching Tony in the playoffs.  I hope the Grizzlies play the Lakers....I think they'll give them a battle and I think Tony will bother Kobe...

Offensively starting Tony Allen didn't work with the C's in part because of Rondo/Perkins. Playing three non-shooters is a serious problem for any line up.

That, and they have a first ballot hall of famer, and current All Star in that spot.  Starting Tony was not an option.  And he just did not work in the role they needed him for. 

He did play well enough to take minutes from Marquis, after Marquis got healthy.  But I agree they didn't trust him because he makes more mistakes in limited minutes.  Also, they did try, how hard is debatable, to bring him back.  I agree he's MUCH better with big minutes, but I disagree that it needs to be on a bad or mediocre team.....

Eh, Marquis was absolutely terrible when he came back from his injury.  Doc practically handed him the job back, but he couldn't take it.  I don't know if he was still injured or what, but if we are using Tony beating him out for those minutes as an argument, it is basically the definition of [dang]ing with faint praise. 

[wiley]

This is Tony's game.  I am surprised it took so long for him to fit in, but I am not surprised at all.  Tony is the type of player who needs to be playing big minutes on a mediocre team to really succeed.  He needs to be allowed to make his mistakes and still be aggressive.   

However, on a team like the C's, he was exposed, because they play such a precise game, and every mistake becomes more important.  He never fit in as a role player, because the role they needed was not within his strengths.  They needed someone steadier, who might not make as many plays, but also didn't make as many mistakes. 

It was a smart move of Chris Wallace to recognize this, and take advantage of getting a guy for cheap, who can put up numbers in a smaller spotlight. 

I still think Tony is just a smaller Gerald Wallace...and yes, that is more a slight on Wallace, who I don't think can be nearly as good on a contender, than a compliment to Tony.

Great analysis, Chris. Had not thought of that. TP

I disagree.  I think Tony could have started for the Celtics and played big minutes.  And HELPED a great deal, despite making more mistakes than Ray Allen.....and not being there to hit threes.  But I do agree that that's not what the Celtics wanted.....

I also agree that if a team doesn't want to take the bad with the good, which may be true of most better teams, but certainly not all good teams, then he'll have more trouble fitting in....

but I think this has to do more with aesthetics and less with actual ability to influence games...

Tony is now starting and playing big minutes for a good team, and it's interesting to note that this team's increased win frequency coincides with Tony settling into the starting lineup and getting lots of minutes.  I'm looking forward to watching Tony in the playoffs.  I hope the Grizzlies play the Lakers....I think they'll give them a battle and I think Tony will bother Kobe...

Offensively starting Tony Allen didn't work with the C's in part because of Rondo/Perkins. Playing three non-shooters is a serious problem for any line up.

That, and they have a first ballot hall of famer, and current All Star in that spot.  Starting Tony was not an option.  And he just did not work in the role they needed him for. 

He did play well enough to take minutes from Marquis, after Marquis got healthy.  But I agree they didn't trust him because he makes more mistakes in limited minutes.  Also, they did try, how hard is debatable, to bring him back.  I agree he's MUCH better with big minutes, but I disagree that it needs to be on a bad or mediocre team.....

Eh, Marquis was absolutely terrible when he came back from his injury.  Doc practically handed him the job back, but he couldn't take it.  I don't know if he was still injured or what, but if we are using Tony beating him out for those minutes as an argument, it is basically the definition of [dang]ing with faint praise. 

Agree Marquis was lousy coming back.  But that doesn't dang Tony.  Tony played very well for a good long stretch and actually earned the time he was given, then struggled again after an injury....then was up and down with minutes and level of play.....he saved our butts in two playoff games, did he not?