Author Topic: Start Baby, over Kevin  (Read 19227 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #60 on: March 17, 2010, 01:02:39 PM »

Offline drza44

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 749
  • Tommy Points: 187
I can't believe this is a thread, and I can't believe there are people arguing that it's not an awful idea.  I mean, it's not just a little bad...it's radically, mushroom-cloud bad.  Leaving aside all common sense and associated numbers, let's just look at how the team does with KG vs Baby:

This year the unit of Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perk scores 110 points/100 possessions and gives up 98 points/100 possessions.  Replace KG with Baby, and suddenly the unit scores 96 and gives up 116.

Small sample size, you say?  Well, last season the unit of Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perk scored 111 points/100 possessions and gave up 98.  And last season, replacing KG with baby, the unit scored 109 and gave up 115.

Replacing KG with Baby would cost the first unit 15 - 20 points per full game on defense, and would cost the unit about another 5 - 10 points on offense as well.  You're talking about at least a 20 point deficit per 48 minutes in your starting unit (so say, 10 - 12 point deficit in the 24 minutes they actually play together per game).  On what planet in the universe is this not a stupendously horrifying idea?

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #61 on: March 17, 2010, 01:09:00 PM »

Offline nyceltsfan

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 383
  • Tommy Points: 31
drza - a couple of things missing from your analysis.  How much of last year's stats are pre-KG injury?  Also, you did not touch the second unit.  Who were the opponents in these situations?  I would imagine that the majority of last year includes the post-season which are better teams than most of the other competition.  Knowing Doc's rotations, would you prefer to continue to throw BBD and Sheed out there together, or make a change?

Also, does KG coming off the bench meant that he will never play with Rondo, Perk, Pierce and Ray?  I would imagine that would be your 5 at the end of every game.

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #62 on: March 17, 2010, 01:10:12 PM »

Offline Birdbrain

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2939
  • Tommy Points: 235
  • 36 charges and counting..
I can't believe this is a thread, and I can't believe there are people arguing that it's not an awful idea.  I mean, it's not just a little bad...it's radically, mushroom-cloud bad.  Leaving aside all common sense and associated numbers, let's just look at how the team does with KG vs Baby:

This year the unit of Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perk scores 110 points/100 possessions and gives up 98 points/100 possessions.  Replace KG with Baby, and suddenly the unit scores 96 and gives up 116.

Small sample size, you say?  Well, last season the unit of Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perk scored 111 points/100 possessions and gave up 98.  And last season, replacing KG with baby, the unit scored 109 and gave up 115.

Replacing KG with Baby would cost the first unit 15 - 20 points per full game on defense, and would cost the unit about another 5 - 10 points on offense as well.  You're talking about at least a 20 point deficit per 48 minutes in your starting unit (so say, 10 - 12 point deficit in the 24 minutes they actually play together per game).  On what planet in the universe is this not a stupendously horrifying idea?


What are you using to predict the points per possession?  BBD has played with the first unit that many times this season?  Or are you using +/-?

Plus like was mentioned KG would still be around and not 'out' to limit the scoring.
Little Fockers 1.5/10
Gulliver's Travels 1/10
Grown Ups -20/10
Tron Legacy 6.5/10

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #63 on: March 17, 2010, 01:12:11 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 45920
  • Tommy Points: 3340
I can't believe this is a thread, and I can't believe there are people arguing that it's not an awful idea.  I mean, it's not just a little bad...it's radically, mushroom-cloud bad.  Leaving aside all common sense and associated numbers, let's just look at how the team does with KG vs Baby:

This year the unit of Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perk scores 110 points/100 possessions and gives up 98 points/100 possessions.  Replace KG with Baby, and suddenly the unit scores 96 and gives up 116.

Small sample size, you say?  Well, last season the unit of Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perk scored 111 points/100 possessions and gave up 98.  And last season, replacing KG with baby, the unit scored 109 and gave up 115.

Replacing KG with Baby would cost the first unit 15 - 20 points per full game on defense, and would cost the unit about another 5 - 10 points on offense as well.  You're talking about at least a 20 point deficit per 48 minutes in your starting unit (so say, 10 - 12 point deficit in the 24 minutes they actually play together per game).  On what planet in the universe is this not a stupendously horrifying idea?

The starting line up is not going anywhere. The question is the backup rotations. Benching your MVP is inconceivable.

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #64 on: March 17, 2010, 01:17:41 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
Also, does KG coming off the bench meant that he will never play with Rondo, Perk, Pierce and Ray?  I would imagine that would be your 5 at the end of every game.
KG is a more effective player than BBD. Why would you want to play less of KG?

KG also isn't the offensive spark plug that typically thrives off the bench late. You want to start the game out strong defensively, KG can't just come in and be a "stopper". He's too good of a player for that.

Moving KG out of the starting lineup makes no sense, would hurt our rhythm, and hurt the team overall.

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #65 on: March 17, 2010, 01:27:14 PM »

Offline Tai

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2230
  • Tommy Points: 32
Seriously, topics like these give fantasy sports fans a horrid name. Not that I'm one, but if this is what you want to do in your fantasy team, fine. But, this won't work in real life.

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #66 on: March 17, 2010, 01:27:29 PM »

Offline drza44

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 749
  • Tommy Points: 187
drza - a couple of things missing from your analysis.  How much of last year's stats are pre-KG injury?  Also, you did not touch the second unit.  Who were the opponents in these situations?  I would imagine that the majority of last year includes the post-season which are better teams than most of the other competition.  Knowing Doc's rotations, would you prefer to continue to throw BBD and Sheed out there together, or make a change?

Also, does KG coming off the bench meant that he will never play with Rondo, Perk, Pierce and Ray?  I would imagine that would be your 5 at the end of every game.

I went for as straight forward of a comp as possible, which is why I kept Rondo/Ray/Pierce/Perk as the constants.  This also increases the likelihood that we are looking at starters against primarily starters, because the number of minutes where Rondo/Ray/Pierce and Perk are playing together and not against opposing starters is negligible.

To answer your specific questions, 82games doesn't separate into pre- or post- KG injury.  But again, it is much more likely that the majority of Baby's minutes with the other 4 starters came when KG was out.

Second, the numbers that I posted were from the regular season only.  

Third, I would prefer to continue to start KG and Perk since that is the unit that maximizes our defense and still maintains a good offense.  In the playoffs I expect there will be fewer minutes when both starting bigs are on the bench anyway, but I actually prefer Sheed/Williams as the combo.  But if Baby is going to get minutes, then yeah, I prefer that as the second combo.

Finally, no, it doesn't mean that he never plays with the other starters.  But it lowers the amount of time that he plays with them, and for no corresponding benefit.  Weakening the starting unit to such a huge degree can't really be made up by strengthening the second unit for much shorter periods of time.

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #67 on: March 17, 2010, 01:30:37 PM »

Offline drza44

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 749
  • Tommy Points: 187
I can't believe this is a thread, and I can't believe there are people arguing that it's not an awful idea.  I mean, it's not just a little bad...it's radically, mushroom-cloud bad.  Leaving aside all common sense and associated numbers, let's just look at how the team does with KG vs Baby:

This year the unit of Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perk scores 110 points/100 possessions and gives up 98 points/100 possessions.  Replace KG with Baby, and suddenly the unit scores 96 and gives up 116.

Small sample size, you say?  Well, last season the unit of Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perk scored 111 points/100 possessions and gave up 98.  And last season, replacing KG with baby, the unit scored 109 and gave up 115.

Replacing KG with Baby would cost the first unit 15 - 20 points per full game on defense, and would cost the unit about another 5 - 10 points on offense as well.  You're talking about at least a 20 point deficit per 48 minutes in your starting unit (so say, 10 - 12 point deficit in the 24 minutes they actually play together per game).  On what planet in the universe is this not a stupendously horrifying idea?


What are you using to predict the points per possession?  BBD has played with the first unit that many times this season?  Or are you using +/-?

Plus like was mentioned KG would still be around and not 'out' to limit the scoring.

I'm using the 5-man unit info from 82games.com.  As I said, BBD hasn't played enough minutes with the starters this year to make a conclusion based on that alone, but he did play a lot of minutes with them last year.  And the 18-point drop in defensive efficiency was consistent across both years, which was the most important figure.

And yes, KG would still be around.  But again, weakening your starting unit to that extent for no reason is asinine.

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #68 on: March 17, 2010, 01:30:49 PM »

Offline RAcker

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3892
  • Tommy Points: 69
  • Law mercy!
I can't believe this is a thread, and I can't believe there are people arguing that it's not an awful idea.  I mean, it's not just a little bad...it's radically, mushroom-cloud bad.  Leaving aside all common sense and associated numbers, let's just look at how the team does with KG vs Baby:

This year the unit of Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perk scores 110 points/100 possessions and gives up 98 points/100 possessions.  Replace KG with Baby, and suddenly the unit scores 96 and gives up 116.

Small sample size, you say?  Well, last season the unit of Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perk scored 111 points/100 possessions and gave up 98.  And last season, replacing KG with baby, the unit scored 109 and gave up 115.

Replacing KG with Baby would cost the first unit 15 - 20 points per full game on defense, and would cost the unit about another 5 - 10 points on offense as well.  You're talking about at least a 20 point deficit per 48 minutes in your starting unit (so say, 10 - 12 point deficit in the 24 minutes they actually play together per game).  On what planet in the universe is this not a stupendously horrifying idea?

The starting line up is not going anywhere. The question is the backup rotations. Benching your MVP is inconceivable.


Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #69 on: March 17, 2010, 01:41:49 PM »

Offline Taklamar

  • Xavier Tillman
  • Posts: 37
  • Tommy Points: 11
      Min    Off      Def     +/-
Davis 361   1.09  1.15  -39   08-09 Reg season
Davis 276   1.09  1.05  +24   08-09 Playoffs
Davis 38.8  0.96  1.16  -12   09-10 Reg Season

KG    1074  1.11  0.98  +260  08-09 Reg Season
KG    876.3 1.10  0.98  +219  09-10 Reg Season

82games.com stats that drza44 is referring to.  These stats are Davis/KG with the Rondo/R. Allen/Pierce/Perkins.




Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #70 on: March 17, 2010, 01:47:24 PM »

Offline looseball

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 515
  • Tommy Points: 77
professional sports is as much about (if not more so) managing egos as they are about talent.  anyone who thinks that KG taking a "demotion" would have a positive impact on a team already questioning their ability is crazy at best...  this team is already screwed up in the head as it is...

Some of us think that changes in the starting lineup can be made for reasons other than to promote or demote players.

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #71 on: March 17, 2010, 02:00:00 PM »

Offline looseball

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 515
  • Tommy Points: 77
Also, does KG coming off the bench meant that he will never play with Rondo, Perk, Pierce and Ray?  I would imagine that would be your 5 at the end of every game.
KG is a more effective player than BBD. Why would you want to play less of KG?

KG also isn't the offensive spark plug that typically thrives off the bench late. You want to start the game out strong defensively, KG can't just come in and be a "stopper". He's too good of a player for that.

Moving KG out of the starting lineup makes no sense, would hurt our rhythm, and hurt the team overall.

I don't think anyone offering support for this idea said anything about KG playing "less".

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #72 on: March 17, 2010, 02:04:24 PM »

Offline Birdbrain

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2939
  • Tommy Points: 235
  • 36 charges and counting..
      Min    Off      Def     +/-
Davis 361   1.09  1.15  -39   08-09 Reg season
Davis 276   1.09  1.05  +24   08-09 Playoffs
Davis 38.8  0.96  1.16  -12   09-10 Reg Season

KG    1074  1.11  0.98  +260  08-09 Reg Season
KG    876.3 1.10  0.98  +219  09-10 Reg Season

82games.com stats that drza44 is referring to.  These stats are Davis/KG with the Rondo/R. Allen/Pierce/Perkins.





Exactly I'm not for the move because I don't think it would help but, using +/- doesn't seem like an appropriate barometer unless BBD was playing with the first unit.
Little Fockers 1.5/10
Gulliver's Travels 1/10
Grown Ups -20/10
Tron Legacy 6.5/10

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #73 on: March 17, 2010, 02:05:08 PM »

Offline wiley

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4854
  • Tommy Points: 386
professional sports is as much about (if not more so) managing egos as they are about talent.  anyone who thinks that KG taking a "demotion" would have a positive impact on a team already questioning their ability is crazy at best...  this team is already screwed up in the head as it is...

Some of us think that changes in the starting lineup can be made for reasons other than to promote or demote players.

well said....

I also think wins and losses is a better barometer than efficiency stats, and knees are pretty good barometers too....if it's wet and rainy, start Glen..

KG would still play big minutes and finishe the games, so again, I think people are overreacting....the sky would not fall.  Only issue, and it's a biggie,  is if Kevin didn't want to do it.....

If we go on a win streak I'll change my mind, but when was the last one of those....IMO worst case scenario it's a lateral move....I just don't want to go down with not a single rule being broken in an attempt to spark the team....Being afraid of this or that move while relying completely on stats is a sign of a weakness.  A well-built, confident team does not make a big deal out of starting or not.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be unprecedented.  It would be bold.  But don't desperate times often call for boldness?

 To repeat myself it's a lateral move at worst.  

"Inconceivable" idea?  that phrase applies to pre-injury Garnett, not post.

Re: Start Baby, over Kevin
« Reply #74 on: March 17, 2010, 02:18:07 PM »

Offline looseball

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 515
  • Tommy Points: 77
professional sports is as much about (if not more so) managing egos as they are about talent.  anyone who thinks that KG taking a "demotion" would have a positive impact on a team already questioning their ability is crazy at best...  this team is already screwed up in the head as it is...

Some of us think that changes in the starting lineup can be made for reasons other than to promote or demote players.

well said....

I also think wins and losses is a better barometer than efficiency stats, and knees are pretty good barometers too....if it's wet and rainy, start Glen..

KG would still play big minutes and finishe the games, so again, I think people are overreacting....the sky would not fall.  Only issue, and it's a biggie,  is if Kevin didn't want to do it.....

If we go on a win streak I'll change my mind, but when was the last one of those....IMO worst case scenario it's a lateral move....I just don't want to go down with not a single rule being broken in an attempt to spark the team....Being afraid of this or that move while relying completely on stats is a sign of a weakness.  A well-built, confident team does not make a big deal out of starting or not.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be unprecedented.  It would be bold.  But don't desperate times often call for boldness?

 To repeat myself it's a lateral move at worst.  

"Inconceivable" idea?  that phrase applies to pre-injury Garnett, not post.

KG is no prima donna, he just wants to win.  Period.

Here's an analogy (though not the best):  When the Patriots win the opening coin toss, they usually defer and let the other team have the ball first.  And they have Brady!  But he doesn't sulk on the bench because the defense gets to start the game.  He's with the program, and he knows they like to get the ball to start the second half.  He just wants to win.