Anyone else think Scal should start when Perk is healthy.

[Greg]

No...

Scal has played well, and really thrives in his role, but c'mon, Perk has been a beast out there.  

What is great about Scal is that he spreads out the defense, which compensates for Rondo's lack of true 3-point shooting ability.  This opens up the inside for K.G., as well as the lane for Rondo.

But Perk is Perk.  He is a great interior defender, has an improving mid range game, is a quickly improving finisher and low-post scorer...  

[Brickowski]

Should Perkins start when Scalabrine is healthy?

[Truck Lewis]

although ive responded a few times on this thread,,,i havent responded to the the OP,,,,,but no scal shouldnt start on any nba team....his 11-0 record starting since we got KG notwithstanding

[cordobes]

i see nothing in his game that's improved during his 4 year tenure here.

Me neither. But that's not unusual.

However, after being the one calling for Doc to work Scal into the rotation during the losing skid, I feel vindicated.

With that in mind, I remember when there was a large consensus about cutting Scal and how he was the worst player in this team. That was pathetic. But now Scal is being over-appreciated by some and that's equally pathetic.

In regular circumstances, Scal doesn't belong in a championship team rotation. He's a very useful player, but not that good.

I think most of the people that like Scal in the starting line up has more to do because we like how the rest of the starters play with him rather on how good Scal is.

I, for example, like him playing as a PF with our starters. I don't like him in many other roles in this team. I don't like him much playing with our bench players, especially as a small forward. That's just my opinion, nothing about me personally believing Scal is beast or anything along those lines, but me seeing a lot of positive in certain roles in this team.

I don't get your point. You like him playing as a PF? But would you bench Garnett? Every single one of our bench players would be favored if they're playing with 4 starters, that's not only about Scal. Guys are in rotations because they are good enough to be there. I completely agree with Scal starting in the absence of KG or Perkins and I said this team needed Scal in the rotation to calm down and recover their mojo. Keep him in there, only if the other guys don't find a way to finally step up. But in that case, we'd be in trouble.

Garnett is the Center. Scal is the PF. And it's not about Scal playing good. Look at tonight as an example, he struggled offensively, but our starting unit played great, the spacing is great.

The point is that it's not about how well Scal performs. It's about how the team performs. I like the starters with a PF spreading the floor, and the guy is good in defensive rotations.

This team can't abdicate from Perkins' post defense and rebounding.

[BudweiserCeltic]

i see nothing in his game that's improved during his 4 year tenure here.

Me neither. But that's not unusual.

However, after being the one calling for Doc to work Scal into the rotation during the losing skid, I feel vindicated.

With that in mind, I remember when there was a large consensus about cutting Scal and how he was the worst player in this team. That was pathetic. But now Scal is being over-appreciated by some and that's equally pathetic.

In regular circumstances, Scal doesn't belong in a championship team rotation. He's a very useful player, but not that good.

I think most of the people that like Scal in the starting line up has more to do because we like how the rest of the starters play with him rather on how good Scal is.

I, for example, like him playing as a PF with our starters. I don't like him in many other roles in this team. I don't like him much playing with our bench players, especially as a small forward. That's just my opinion, nothing about me personally believing Scal is beast or anything along those lines, but me seeing a lot of positive in certain roles in this team.

I don't get your point. You like him playing as a PF? But would you bench Garnett? Every single one of our bench players would be favored if they're playing with 4 starters, that's not only about Scal. Guys are in rotations because they are good enough to be there. I completely agree with Scal starting in the absence of KG or Perkins and I said this team needed Scal in the rotation to calm down and recover their mojo. Keep him in there, only if the other guys don't find a way to finally step up. But in that case, we'd be in trouble.

Garnett is the Center. Scal is the PF. And it's not about Scal playing good. Look at tonight as an example, he struggled offensively, but our starting unit played great, the spacing is great.

The point is that it's not about how well Scal performs. It's about how the team performs. I like the starters with a PF spreading the floor, and the guy is good in defensive rotations.

This team can't abdicate from Perkins' post defense and rebounding.

So he can't do that off the bench? Especially with a bench that lacks size?

I think our starters can manage if it means more effectiveness offensively. Nothing stops Doc if he notices we're getting out rebounded from bringing Perk early in the game. Nothing stops Doc from keeping Perk on the floor once the starters come back on the floor.

Knowing how Doc uses his rotations and his units, this move makes sense in many ways.

[Danimals]

Should Scal start over Perk? No.

But Perk does need to be able to knock down jumpers ala PJ Brown, so that it opens up the paint for our guards on the drive, and Garnett on the low blocks.

[cordobes]

Perkins playing defense against the other teams backup center would be a waste. You want your best players to play the other team best players. He'd also be a terrible fit in an offensively challenged bench and paired with guys like Powe and Tony Allen. And the bench is also in need of what Scal brings.  Besides that, Garnett defending centers is a terrible idea on the long run. But, most importantly, Scal should not even play in a 8/9 men rotation.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Perkins playing defense against the other teams backup center would be a waste. You want your best players to play the other team best players. He'd also be a terrible fit in an offensively challenged bench and paired with guys like Powe and Tony Allen. And the bench is also in need of what Scal brings.  Besides that, Garnett defending centers is a terrible idea on the long run. But, most importantly, Scal should not even play in a 8/9 men rotation.

But then again, you have to factor on how Doc uses his rotations and on how other teams rotate their players. We often find ourselves having to use Baby and Powe to guard the opposing starter because the way Doc rotates players is in blocks of playing time. So Perk might find himself starting to play against the backup, but Doc can keep him in the game for when the starter comes back.

The whole "best players on the floor" theory doesn't really fly with me. It ignores other factors. Various teams have used defensive specialists in the starting unit, for example, even when better players are on the roster.

The Garnett thing is quite valid, but I'm thinking more of strategies that win games and bring out best outcomes in individual games. But surely, you don't want Garnett banging against centers often. But then again, the way Doc rotates players, Perk should be there when Garnett comes back on the floor for a good period of time. Also, for those that want Posey as our PF to spread the floor, last year he was often playing in the 4th instead of Perk, so Garnett had his great share of defending centers. It's not really unusual. But a reason of solely wanting to protect Garnett is quite valid.

And again, just because I like him with our starters, it doesn't mean I like him as a rotation player. You might like what he brings to the bench, I really don't care much for it. Circumstances change, and as the circumstances change my opinions of how a player should be used changes, so I can't agree with limiting ourselves to the idea of him not playing in a 8/9 men rotation. Circumstances change, needed roles change, usage of players change. The scenarios are simply different and my opinions on the player changes regarding the different scenarios.

[pumpfake]

no

we need perk's size and d in the middle. and perk wouldn't be as effective off the bench.

but maybe scal's earned some more minutes

he's playing his best ball

[TitleMaster]

Garnett is the Center. Scal is the PF. And it's not about Scal playing good. Look at tonight as an example, he struggled offensively, but our starting unit played great, the spacing is great.

The point is that it's not about how well Scal performs. It's about how the team performs. I like the starters with a PF spreading the floor, and the guy is good in defensive rotations.

In terms of rotations, Doc's main boondoggle was in having Powe/BBD in there, together, for too long.

All and all, it's better for the starting unit, not to get burnt out and using Perks the way we'd used McHale, when Max was a starter, is an effective way to get to the game going without extending anyone's minutes.

[kenmaine]

No, I don't think so, but maybe some of the Scal abusers here should admit that the guy does belong in the NBA and can play a little.
But most likely, no matter what the reality is, or how well he plays, some people won't change their minds. He'll always be a "blob" to some.
That doesn't mean I think he is any more than a ninth or tenth man, but he's certainly not useless.

[footey]

Scal should not be a starter. I think Perk plays better as a starter. However, I think Scal is just a consistent 3 point shot from getting major minutes off the bench once Perk gets healthy.

[TitleMaster]

Scal should not be a starter. I think Perk plays better as a starter.

It's not about who starts but who finishes, in the end. If Perks can keep those minutes down then perhaps that shoulder will be near 100% by playoff time. All and all, we have 4 stars with the Big 3 and Rondo, so we can keep a little in reserve. All and all, I like the idea of our bench players, like Powe or BBD, playing alongside Perks than with one another or Scal.

[Tr1boy]

Scal hasn't only given rondo's offense rejuvanation but also ray allens and paul pierce's. He spreads the floor well and his defense is more than stellar against most pf in the league. (amare was clueless last night)

Perk coming off the bench would be good at this point. He could come in 1st, and absolutely help confuse the other teams defensive sets and pound away at their centre.

But near the end of the game you gotto have scal out there with the starters.

I don't care if perk is a better center than kg , he will not in theory help this team as much as scal can. (with rondo's inability to shoot, lack of james posey)

Also Perk would be decently effective off the bench (playing with davis or powe, house, walker) compared to scal who should mainly play with the starters.

[cordobes]

Perkins playing defense against the other teams backup center would be a waste. You want your best players to play the other team best players. He'd also be a terrible fit in an offensively challenged bench and paired with guys like Powe and Tony Allen. And the bench is also in need of what Scal brings.  Besides that, Garnett defending centers is a terrible idea on the long run. But, most importantly, Scal should not even play in a 8/9 men rotation.

But then again, you have to factor on how Doc uses his rotations and on how other teams rotate their players. We often find ourselves having to use Baby and Powe to guard the opposing starter because the way Doc rotates players is in blocks of playing time. So Perk might find himself starting to play against the backup, but Doc can keep him in the game for when the starter comes back.

The whole "best players on the floor" theory doesn't really fly with me. It ignores other factors. Various teams have used defensive specialists in the starting unit, for example, even when better players are on the roster.

The Garnett thing is quite valid, but I'm thinking more of strategies that win games and bring out best outcomes in individual games. But surely, you don't want Garnett banging against centers often. But then again, the way Doc rotates players, Perk should be there when Garnett comes back on the floor for a good period of time. Also, for those that want Posey as our PF to spread the floor, last year he was often playing in the 4th instead of Perk, so Garnett had his great share of defending centers. It's not really unusual. But a reason of solely wanting to protect Garnett is quite valid.

And again, just because I like him with our starters, it doesn't mean I like him as a rotation player. You might like what he brings to the bench, I really don't care much for it. Circumstances change, and as the circumstances change my opinions of how a player should be used changes, so I can't agree with limiting ourselves to the idea of him not playing in a 8/9 men rotation. Circumstances change, needed roles change, usage of players change. The scenarios are simply different and my opinions on the player changes regarding the different scenarios.

I completely agree the best starting line-up is not necessarily your best line-up (and that is who finishes the game that matters), but in this case I don't get the rationale.

- Perkins is the perfect fit next to Garnett. You have to maximize their minutes together.
- When we need someone to spread the floor offensively is not when Ray, Pierce and KG are playing at the same time.
- The last thing guys like Tony Allen and Powe need is a player like Perkins playing alongside them.

Basketball doesn't change that much. It was obvious for me we'd need Scal type of skill-set - that's why I predicted he'd get minutes this season. I'm absolutely sure that Scal will never start over Perkins as well.