And as Danny has noted, when Tony gets 20 plus minutes, he produces, end of discussion. He's going to get minutes this season and put up numbers.
I hate to repeat myself, but this a terribly flawed logic.
[............]
I share your opinion that Tony Allen can be a productive player, but the argument that he puts good numbers when he plays more than 20mpg and therefore the discussion is ended is pure garbage.
In my view, the problem is not IF Tony Allen can be productive but HOW will he be productive. One can't just throw a bunch of players who can produce together and hope the team to produce (except in Isiah Thomas very particular world). This is the reason I defended I'd rather keep Posey than add Maggette, in spite of the later being a much better basketball player. There's a chance that, eventually, TA can be productive and as a trade off one has to endure a decline in production of Pierce or/and Allen. This is not very good, unless one thinks Tony Allen is a better player.
So, if I understand your argument correctly, you agree that Tony will be productive, but you have reservations about whether that productivity will lead to another championship. For that reason, you favored pursuing the status quo this past offseason, signing an aging and declining player (Posey), instead of a younger and more productive one (like Maggette, or Tony Allen for that matter) because one had proven himself and the other had not.
Hmmm...nope. You didn't understand my argument correctly and I highly doubt you have even read what i wrote. I stated the precise argument. It has nothing to do with the "status quo" - I have no idea where have you read something that would suggest that. I don't have exactly "reservations" - I think it's very hard to predict and that most of the outcome will depend on Doc's creativity.
I see the use of straw man arguments as something very rude and uncivilized.
Cordobes, feel free to state your 'precise' argument if you're so certain I've missed or misconstrued it. The fact that you failed to restate it leads me to believe that you aren't even sure of what you think it is. And if you do, I highly doubt you understand the implications of it.
To recap, it seems to me that your 'precise' argument is that all types of players, Ramon Sessions for example, can put up good numbers when they get minutes. Ok, I get that. But you caution that even though someone can put up numbers when they get minutes it's not necessarily the case that those numbers will lead to wins. As an example, you cite the Knicks, who put 'producers' together who failed to produce wins. As a further example, you cited that you favored keeping Posey instead of going after Maggette, even though you admit that Maggette is a better player. So, in your own words, the question comes down to: "not IF Tony Allen can be productive but HOW will he be productive."
Putting that all together, I come up with the following implications:
1. You favor the status quo. Since Posey et al did it last season, you wanted to get them another shot at it. Why else would you favor keeping Posey instead of exchanging him for Maggette (or Tony Allen)?
2. You're going to judge Tony not on the numbers he produces, but rather on whether the 2nd team gels as it did last season, leading us to a championship. That's why you re-framed the question as "HOW will he be productive?"
Now, from reading your response, it seems that you don't understand that these implications follow from what you argued. In fact, you wrote:
However, I'll explain to you that, if anything, I believe the mantra "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" to be way over-rated. I'd rather have many other players in last or this year's team instead of Posey - in fact, I'd be willing to trade every single player on the team for better players, as long as they could mesh well and build a better team. To give a quick example, I'd rather have Posey than Maggette; but if we traded Rondo for Farmar, then I'd prefer Maggette to Posey.
While I'd quibble with your examples (Farmar is extremely overrated and I don't know why we'd trade Rondo for him), I think it's clear that you allow for the fact that multiple players could have filled the Posey role last season and we still would have won. So, I ask you, what exactly is your problem with Tony Allen? Is it simply that he hasn't had the good fortune of playing a meaningful role on a winning team? Or that his particular abilities aren't going to mess well with this particular team?
In a previous post in this thread you wrote:
That said, in my view Tony is the kind of player whose style is better served when he can play on the ball, in the strongside. Doc's biggest challenge is to transform Allen in a better player off-the-ball. This is very important for the team coming the playoffs, when our most talented players are going to be on the floor for long minutes. It's not exactly a matter of being productive with minutes, I disagree with Chris here, but of being productive with less shot attempts, less touches, less dribble penetrations, etc. Let's hope he can do that, or we are basically screwed. As pointed before in this thread, taking (and making) dozens of contested shots in pre-season games is not indicative of what he can do in that role; although I think it's going to be a precious asset in the regular season.
Perhaps this is the precise argument you talk of? It seems that you argue Tony hasn't shown he can't play off the ball effectively; that he needs the rock in his hands to be productive; that he hasn't proved that he can be productive with less shot attempts, less touches, less dribble penetration opportunities, etc... Perhaps, this is why you think that it'll probably come down to Doc's creativity. Somehow Doc will have to get Tony to play off the ball effectively. To this I say:
Contrary to you've stated, you're judging this team based on last year's model. Since Posey was able to defer to the big 3, Tony must be able to as well. While you state that don't subscribe to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy, you're using last year's standards to predict this season's outcome. What I'm saying is that there are many ways to skin a catfish. The way we won last season doesn't necessitate winning that same way this season. Perhaps that's what you meant by saying it'll come down to "Doc creativity." In that respect you're right, and I suspect Doc is not stupid enough to expect Tony to play Posey's role this season. So, contrary to your assessment, we are not 'screwed' if Tony can't play off the ball; we're simply going to be different. And as you admit, we can be different and still be champions.
Once again, you are wrong: I said that the very usual mantra that "player X produces when given minutes" is sustained by a flawed logic. I explained why and proceeded to give practical examples. If you want to make a counter-argument, I'd be glad to hear it.
Well, first, I'm not sure how much logic is involved. I'm simply arguing from history: when healthy and given minutes, Tony Allen has produced. As to the broader context, that "player X produces when given minutes," obviously that can only be determined on a case-to-case basis. It's not a universal rule. The counter-argument is that to determine real worth, you have to look at the context of those numbers. It depends on how player X scores, whether it's efficiently or not, how well player X defends his position; how much leadership player X shows while he gets his numbers (the difference between Ricky Davis' numbers and Brandon Roy's is the utter lack of leadership that Ricky could show) and a myriad of other factors. In Tony's specific case, in all the times of health and minutes (I'd say those times would include parts of his rookie year, his 3rd year, and this season so far), Tony has been a highly efficient scorer, getting to the line and getting easy buckets. He isn't a volume scorer; he gets lots of layups and free throw attempts. He's also shown a good amount of vision, often responding to double teams by finding the open man under the basket. He's also shown great overall tenacity and toughness, especially on defense. I believe that any decent coach could take these qualities and weave them into an overall team game plan. In fact, I expect Doc to do just that. Specifically, I'm not sure how much we'll see Tony with the Big 3; it's more likely we see him with 2 of them; and it's very likely that we see him quite often without any of the 3 as Doc attempts to continue to limit their minutes. Posey, on the one hand, could not be very effective without the Big 3 drawing attention and kicking the ball to him. Thus, it was hard for Doc to limit Ray and Paul's minutes. On the other hand, Tony can be effective without the Big 3 and he'll make it easier to limit Ray's and Paul's minutes. So, while we won't perhaps see Tony much in the 4th quarter with the Big 3, what we will see is a fresher Ray and Paul because of the effective minutes Tony was able to play in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters. Again, there are many ways to skin a catfish.
So, if you want to have a discussion, STRICTLY from a coaching perspective, about the pros and cons of having a player with Tony Allen's skillset, or, more precisely, the roster the way it is currently constructed, with its weaknesses and strengths, I'd be happy to participate. I believe that what I wrote in this thread about the offensive systems the team has been experimenting in the pre-season games so far is a good starting point, but surely there are others you can come up with.
You're right, this is where the conversation should head. I've begun that conversation with my assertion that, unlike Posey, Tony won't see many minutes with the Big 3 down the stretch. I think Doc will give Tony that time to be the man on the 2nd team, hopefully limiting Ray and Paul's minutes as a result. I'll also make the assertion that Tony will, on occasion, play with the starters in a Rondo/Tony/Ray/Paul/KG small ball lineup and that in those occasions Tony will be asked to hit some corner threes, make smart passes to the post, limit his penetration opportunities and turnovers, and play spectacular defense while getting out on the break for easy bucket opportunities. I think he can do ALL that given the opportunity. I especially think his 3 point shot is going to surprise people this season. But I'd also caution people against expecting all that the first game of the season. I expect it'll take Tony a half season to get fully comfortable in his new role.
Topic: Tony Allen, Under-appreciated? (Read 8724 times)