It's impossible to attach any big picture thoughts to the Celtics based on the win over the Bucks on Sunday night.

What we witnessed from the Bucks was historically brutal. Until Sunday night, the ugliest moment in Milwaukee Bucks history was the 1987 team photo. But 56 points? Twenty-two of 70 from the field (31.4 percent)? Twenty-two points in the first half and 38 points through three quarters (an NBA record)? 

Sure, the Celtics probably were embarrassed with their efforts against the Clippers and 76ers and stepped up the defensive intensity. I'll buy it. But let's be fair: The Bucks looked like they were playing the final game of a 280-game road trip. Just a total mail-in job.

Let's not put a lot of stock in Sunday's game when trying to figure out if Nenad Krstic is the answer in the middle, or if Troy Murphy (12 points, 7 rebounds in 17 minutes on Sunday) is going to play a role for this team. And let's not get too worked up trying to solve what it is that's bothering Rajon Rondo (2 points on 1-6 shooting, 3 assists). 

Lost, however, in the blizzard of ineptitude from the Bucks is this little statistical nugget: Ray Allen shot 6-of-10 from the field on Sunday night.

I mean, by itself who cares? Ray Allen had a nice shooting night in a blowout win. Big deal.

But with that 6-of-10 effort Allen is now shooting an even 50 percent from the field 64 games into the 2010-11 season.

Again, so what? Well, there's this: Ray Allen -- on any serious list of the top dozen shooters in NBA history -- has shot 50 percent from the floor exactly zero times in his 14-year career. 

Nope, his best is 48 percent, which he's done twice -- in 2008-09 with the Celtics and in 2000-01 with the Bucks. And Allen is shooting 46.5 percent on 3-pointers this season, second only to Matt Bonner among all league players (Allen has never finished in the top seven in the NBA in 3-point percentage in any season) and well ahead of any total in his career.

So the question that needs to be asked is this: Has Ray Allen, at 35 years old, ever been a better shooter than he is right now?

"You tell me," Allen said with a laugh. "I don't really know if I am or not, I guess it's irrelevant whether I am or not. I've shot the ball better, in my mind, in other years, but I really do feel good about how I'm shooting the ball. So it's really hard to say, I guess it's subjective."

There is a way things are supposed to be. Some things never change, and it's almost comforting. An aging rock star believing that some solo album they release in their 60s is the best work they've ever done. Corruption in the NCAA. Academy Award voters tripping over themselves to hand out Oscars to the British. Jay Leno stealing from Howard Stern.

And shooting guards not setting career highs at age 35.

Doesn't happen. First of all, most of 'em are out of the league by then (even Michael Jordan was gone -- second retirement -- at age 34). But if they are lucky (or good, I guess) enough to stick around, it's either as a backup or a regular in significant decline. 

Look at Reggie Miller, who is usually the first guy we compare Allen to (and I'm even not sure that comparison holds water any longer, Allen has moved pretty far ahead career-wise when you look at the numbers). Miller at age 35 had the worst field goal percentage of his career (at the time) and saw his 3-point field goal percentage drop from 40.8 to 36.6. 

And that's the normal slide at that age, at that position. What we are watching from Allen this season simply does not follow the NBA script (I was going to refer to Allen as an "NBA Outlier" until I Googled "Ray Allen NBA Outlier" and saw Bill Simmons had done that just a month ago. Wouldn't have been good, and my pal Jack-O would have never let me forget it. Not good times.) There are reasons for this. Having an elite point guard with the ability to penetrate and kick -- and knowing where Allen likes the ball -- is a huge help. And Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce don't hurt, either. 

But Rajon Rondo, Garnett and Pierce were around last year. And people point to Allen's workout regimen -- which shall we say involves more cardio than Joba Chamberlain's -- but it's not like he just discovered the treadmill last July.

Allen had an interesting take when asked why his shooting numbers were higher now than in his prime years (All-NBA in 2001 and 2005, at least 20 points per game from 2000-07).

"Sometimes you get less shots, I'm getting less shots now, and I'm more efficient," said Allen. "Back then I shot the ball more, I don't know what the number of attempts per game were back then, but it felt like I was taking more."

Efficient. It's a word we've connected to Paul Pierce's maturity as an offensive player, but it applies to Allen as well. Allen's best scoring season was 2006-07, when he averaged 26.4 ppg, sixth in the league. But he took 21 shots per game and shot 43.8 percent (85th in the NBA). 

This season? Just 12.2 shots per game -- second-lowest of his career -- but his 50 percent from the floor is 30th in the NBA. 

And that's a pattern in Allen's career. In the five seasons which he's had the most field goal attempts, Allen has shot at least 45 percent only once. And in the five seasons which he's had the fewest field goal attempts, he's shot at least 45 percent four times (with a 47.7, 48.0 and this season's 50.0).

Makes sense. When Allen was the alpha dog on a 31-51 Seattle team in 2007, he was taking a lot of the same shots we saw Pierce take on, say, the Ricky Davis/Jiri Welsch/Mark Blount (the second-leading scorer) 2004 Celtics. Bail-out stuff as the shot clock ran down, or end of the quarter situations, or forcing shots against a double-team.

Now Allen and Pierce don't need to do that. Allen said Sunday that he doesn't care if he takes three shots or 23 shots. It's about winning and defense. 

Allen knows the shots will come, and he thinks -- as he always has -- that he's going to make each one. 

"I like where I am right now, and that's the whole key," Allen said.

And that fits in the big picture.