Stats: T. Allen > Daniels

[JHTruth]

The one statistical category that hurts TA on this team is turnovers, and that fact will keep him from getting big minutes on this team. The team struggled as a whole with that category as much as anything else, and so it makes little sense to play an individual whom will only inflate that problem with his performance.

Aside from that rather huge problem, TA is a decent bench guy..

[MyInsatiableOne]

I like TA for several reasons but he still has a smaller brain than Daniels. Years ago he was asked what ONE word best exemplified the Boston Celtics and he said "hard work."

[mr_sunshine]

Grunching....

Impact: Daniels > TA

/thread

[Scalamental]

I'm going by NBA live 09, and they say that T.A. is much better, so I'm going with that.

/thread

[Celts17Pride]

If Tony Allen was better than Marquis Daniels then the Celtics wouldn't have gone out and signed Daniels. The Celtics wouldn't have paid an extra $4.0 million just for the heck of it.

Daniels > TA and Daniels will play a lot more than TA.

[Celtics_85]

Throw out your little stat lines and who is better than who here, as both these guys will be productive to this team during the season. TA brings what he brings, and so does Daniels. Both these guys are part of this team and we should back both of them, so quit this penny ante stuff because who cares who is better, they both play for my team.

[Celts17Pride]

TA brings what he brings.

That's the problem.

[Ortho Stice]

And according to adjusted +/- Brad Miller is significantly better than Dwight Howard.

[GuyClinch]

TA is greatly undervalued around here - even by the coaching staff. So getting Daniels is a plus. He is bigger - and has more offensive game so Doc will actually play him. Also overall adjusted +/- strikes me as pretty good statistic but its not infallible. Its very hard to really seperate out the individual from the team - though it makes a better attempt then raw +/-

Pete

[No1CeltsFan]

TA sux. Flat out. End of story.

Stop wasting the strength in ur fingers typing how good he is. The guy is awful. His teammates know it. The coaches know it. The ownership knows it. The front office knows it. The other teams know it. Most of all the fans know it.

It makes me question people's basketball IQ when they actually say TA is a good player.

[chakdaddy]

Does the stat have anything to do with the fact that we need a backup 3, and Marquis Daniels is 6'6", while TA is generously listed at 6'4?

[Jammer]

Some are saying, "I watch the games, and Tony sucks, he can't dribble and can't shoot".
I agree to an extent. There is no question Tony is a poor ballhandler and shooter for a 1, 2, or 3. That has been pretty obvious since his rookie year. And the stats I mentioned above also agree with this. However, his offensive game is really not that bad for a defensive speciallist, which is what Tony should be.

To the points about the stat itself...
Adjusted plus/minus is the best stat available by a wide margin. The reason for this is very few assumptions go into the number. Here is how the stat works... Team A plays Team B (with the same 10 guys on the court for the whole game) and they tie. Then one player on Team A as taken out and replaced with a new guy. The game is replayed and Team A wins by 5. So, the new guy is 5 points better than the old guy. The assumption is that if your team scores more/gives up less with you on the court, than you are a good player. The math is hard, but the idea is very simple. PER and NetPER, on the other hand both make huge assumptions and omit major parts of the game. PER and NetPER are very similar to just Adding Point, Assists, Rebounds, Steals, Blocks and subtracting TOs, or just eyeballing a guys stat line. Adjusted plus/minus is a fundementally better approach. The flaw with Adjusted plus/minus is that there is a lot of random fluctuation in the numbers, so you need a relatively large body of work to get a number you can have confidence in. This may be why people feel the numbers don't "track reality" if you look at any given year. That's why I took 5 years.

I should also point out it would be an overstatment to look at these numbers and say Tony Allen is as good, or almost as good as Ray Allen. However, I think you can say Tony Allen very likely underrated as a player and better (overall) than Daniels and House.

I disagree. Your adjusted plus/minus is an esoteric stat that has little relevance to what's actually happening. The assumptions that you use to create your "statistic" are inherently flawed, leaving nothing of value. Even the creator of the site where you obtained your data abandoned adjusted plus/minus years ago, The Roland Rating is now 75% NET PER and 25% on court/off court plus minus (without adjustment). They still publish the adjusted plus/minus data, but even Roland doesn't use it in his Roland Rating anymore.

Sully made some good points, also. As much as I spoke up for Tony Allen this summer, saying he was a deserving rotation player, with a NET PER and adjusted plus minus probably around 75th in the NBA, the fact remains, when the Celtics tried to Sign & Trade for Marquis Daniels, the Celtics were unable to give Tony Allen away, or give away Scalabrine, or (Walker, Giddens & Pruitt).

The following offers were all turned down.

Sacramento would not take Scal or Tony
Portland would not take Scal or Tony
Oklahoma City would not take Scal or Tony
Memphis would not take Scal or Tony
Minnesota would not waive Chucky Atkins, saving $2.72 million, since $2.72 Million of Chucky's $3.6 Million salary was not guaranteed, allowing them to add Tony Allen for nothing

Indiana would not take Scal or Tony Allen

Indiana would not even take BIll Walker back in July, when Pruitt could still be cut by any team he would have been sent to up to August 1 with his contract not guaranteed, and with GIddens going to another team for a pick or cash back to the Celtics.

None of these deals went down.

So, as much as I think Tony would have helped Memphis, and as good a defender as he is, Tony, Giddens and Walker were not seen as sure fire rotation players by some very crappy teams. All teams are built around a starter, a backup, and insurance, where insurance players are players you get for minimum, meaning you get them for nothing. You trade for starters and backups. Walker, Giddens and Tony were not seen as sure fire backups, even though Tony is better than most backups around the league because of his exceptional defense..

You also forget that since Marquis Daniels is 2 to 2.5 inches taller than Tony, plus has about another inch in reach, his increased size makes him more suited as a backup SF than Tony.

[JMillott]

Personally i'd rather have both of them then just one or the other. If it was a one or the other scenario i'd rather have Tony Allen because I still believe that when he is healthy and has a steady role that he plays better basketball then Daniels.

For me scoring efficency (points per shot attempt) is a major major factor when judging players and Tony Allen provides that better then 90% of the other defensive specialists in this league. Daniels is absolutely horrible in that same catagory with them being pretty even every where else other then turnovers.

For me scoring efficency trumps being more turnover prone unless there is some other factors in play. Now I'll fully admit that Eddie House could be considered to be just that other factor but to be perfectly honest we'd have been better served replacing Eddie House then Tony Allen in my opinion.